Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 July	1 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete; I note the Keep comments, but the Delete consensus is overwhelming. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Keem[edit]

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

Non-notable youtuber/streamer. Fails GNG and all sources are either unreliable (Reddit etc), self-published or passing mentions in articles about other subjects. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of significant coverage in reliable sources to pass the GNG benchmark. GAB^gab 02:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although there looks to be plenty of references that mention or speak of this article subject, very few (like this one, this one, and this one) cover the article subject in-depth (and some of them cover an event, really). Significant coverage is not established here; there isn't enough reliable sources that cover the article subject primarily and in-depth to be able to create an article about this person without the use of original research, which is required to be established before WP:GNG can be met. This person's focus area can be debated as to whether he's considered an entertainer or a creative professional; either way you look at it, this article subject fails the notability requirements for both. Hence, I am voting delete. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Oshwah. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 03:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is extremely notable in the youtube community as every youtuber knows about him. There was a petition to ban Keemstar from youtube, that has gained over 50,000 subscribers which is a lot considering how small the YouTube community is. There have been videos made on Keemstar including Phillip DeFranco, Yousef Erakat, GradeAUnderA and h3h3 Productions who have close to 14 million subscribers collectively. Alot of people may want the Wiki page removed due to personal reasons, but not everyone can be happy with a page Hawkeye75 (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to put in perspective - 1.46 million subscribers vs 4.78 million - Merely having a lot of subscribers does not make someone notable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you watch youtube, than you would know who Keemstar is. Keemstar is more notable than NikkieTutorials since he is covered by so many different fanbases. No one knows who Nikkie is, since she doesn't she create drama (which is why Keemstar is notable). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye75 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Completely article is not bad but unfortunately some information is missing, I'm disappointed but youtube search for some of the missing. Junior5a (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oshwah's analysis. GNG is not satisfied. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Side note - To User:Oshwah: just because there aren't enough references doesn't make a wiki page up for deletion. If there aren't enough good references than you can use the "citation needed" tag. Hawkeye75 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get roiiiight into delete. There needs to be reliable third party sources before we could even get into this. _{Perhaps a merge with Gnome?} --Adam in MO (talk)
Adam in MO is trolling, please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye75 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye75 - I understand that you're frustrated over this AfD discussion and that the wording in adamfinmo's response might have upset you, but he was not trolling or being disruptive. The best thing you can do to learn and gain positive experience from this is to read the guidelines and policies that are linked within the votes here, and use them to understand the rationale behind the reason. Nobody here is disagreeing with your vote and the outcome you'd like to see happen because they want to discourage you or drive you away; they're simply using their experience to follow policy and improve the project. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't think you should be allowed to just use a "per user" on a deletion page. You should have to voice your own opinion and not just stand behind other's opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye75 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with another editor's rationale and citing that explanation in their own statement is perfectly fine to do. While it may not be an explanation from their own words, their input is still helping the discussion achieve its primary goal: coming to a consensus. So long as the input is supporting the process of achieving consensus, the method in which it is actually doing so matters much less. Remember: Wikipedia is not a democracy. The vote "tally" does not matter whatsoever; it just happens to be the format that this project area chooses to communicate in. It is the statements behind the vote that do matter. If someone wishes to cite another editor's response as their own, it supports the bottom line of this discussion. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OshwahTo be fair I was teasing a little. People familiar with Keemstar would be familiar with the jokes. I stand by my honest critique. I have had hours of entertainment from Keemstar's videos but he just doesn't have any coverage from mainstream sources. As much as I would personally like to see an article on him (and I do), he simply doesn't meet the criteria for acceptance. Hawkeye75 when approaching a community discussion editors should always read the comments that have been left thoughtfully and thoroughly. You'll often find a seasoned editor has posted a link to a policy or something in the MOS that might change any knee-jerk reaction that you may have. There is no shame in agreeing with a previous statement. That is how consensus is done. I also see that you are new to the project, and should this AFD end in way that you would not favor I hope that you will stick with us. Often it is in a new editor's first conflict or deletion that they learn the most about how we build and encyclopedia.--Adam in MO Talk 02:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adamfinmo couldn't have said it any better :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable youtube "star". There is literally thousands of people just like him on Youtube and Twitch. Not all of them deserve an article. Luckily we have GNG to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were. Nothing in searching google shows reliable secondary sources talking about this guy. All I can find is stuff like this [1]. If being famous for starting feuds with other strangers on youtube is the bar for inclusion to Wikipedia, then everyone who has used the internet in the past 15 years should be on here. Valeince (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per Oshwah.--Yufitran (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and other applicable notability guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mass following; has made no unique contribution. Fails WP:ENT. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Has been talked about by many reliable sources: article, mention, article, article, article, article, article, mention, mention. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination. The massive changes the article underwent during the AfD, and the fact that many earlier participants did not come back to comment on the revised version or later claims of sources, makes it essentially impossible to derive a consensus outcome from this particular discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ching's Secret[edit]

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

Pure advertising, but a previous AfD closed as no consensus due to lack of participation. Nominated for G11, and it meets that criterion, but that's technically unavailable after even a non consensus close DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nominator. Clear case FOR G11. Uncletomwood (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article as nominated is clearly highly promotional, and therefore non-encyclopedic. However, I do believe the company (barely) meets GNG: see this, this, and this. There are a number of other mentions in news sources, which are not quite as substantial. If the article were pared down to material that just came from these sources, it would be worth keeping. I will try to clean this up shortly. Vanamonde (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've thrown out nearly everything promotional, and added all the substantive English language coverage I could find. I am not 100% certain this is worth keeping, but if we decide to delete this version, then I'll be certain it was the right call. Vanamonde (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as I myself tagged for G11 since it cert applied, I made careful searches and examinations but essentially found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 17:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Mall, Damodar (2014). Supermarketwala: Secrets To Winning Consumer India. Haryana, India: Random House India (Random House). ISBN 8184006497. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  The book notes:
  So here's a trick question: Which is the cuisine with a uniformly high pan-Indian appeal? In other words, which type of cuisine can now be found all across the country and has a uniform acceptance rate? ... Ajay Gupta, a food entrepreneur from Mumbai, had asked me the question about the truly pan-Indian cuisine. When he saw my confusion, his tongue-in-cheek but accurate answer was, 'Indian Chinese. Indian Chinese is popular as street food, restaurant fare, and now also at home, across the country, from Aizawl to Jaisalmer and from Leh to Quilon,' he chuckled.
  He should know, for Ajay has been selling the Ching's Secret brand of Chinese food products for fifteen years in India. When he launched the brand, he clearly saw the popularity of Chinese food in India.
  ...
  To add to the charisma of the brand, Ajay decided to explore one more aspect of the middle-class Indian kitchen. While the woman of the house wanted to be adventurous in her cooking, she had no idea what this entailed. For instance, most women were aware of Hakka noodles as one of the chief dishes of a Chinese meal, but not what went with it. Was it enough to have a sweet and sour vegetable? Was something more required? Ching's Secret found itself in the position of not merely an innovator, but a mentor. When one of the largest retailers in the country suggested that Ching's Secret present itself as a total solution, Ajay knew exactly what he should do. And since this retailer was a brand partner as well, Ajay got the freedom to represent all Chinese cuisine ingredients together on the shelf as a single section. Now the customer saw not Ching's Secret Hakka noodles in one aisle and Ching's Secret soya sauce in another, but the entire range together, at one single place. The power of suggestion became a multiplier in itself. The supermarket shelves 'told' the customer to buy sweet corn soup to go along with the main meal. Ching's Secret no longer stood for 'ingredients for Chinese cooking', but a do-it-yourself Chinese menu. The product range opened the door for any woman who wished to prepare a full Indian Chinese meal at home. No wonder the brand succeeded in the face of giants like Knorr and Maggi. The difference between them and Ching's was that while they offered a product, Ching's—the Chinese expert—offered a cuisine solution.
  Today the brand advertises on TV, was a sponsor for the popular reality show, Indian Idol, sells in both urban and rural markets and has a huge presence in all kirana stores, but Ching's Secret was probably the first mainstream brand in India that was built in modern retail stores and then moved to traditional retail. It successfully tapped into the access and depth of the large, self-service supermarkets, and capitalized on the growth these offered to its advantage. The mantra of Ching's Secret's success is now being replicated by other newage marketers ...
2. The sources mentioned by Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ching's Secret to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) has cleaned up the article so that it is no longer promotional. Cunard (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Sullivan[edit]

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

From what I'm observing, this actor fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The article cites his minor role in the TV series Banshee and two minor roles in other productions. The actor also will perform in a minor role in an upcoming movie with Robert De Niro, Bus 657, an information that cannot be used to support notability. Regardless of what the article shows, I've also searched for hints of notability online, without success. I have not found any reliable independent secondary source talking about this person, except for an interview, which is already cited in the article. To me it seems a simple case of WP:TOOSOON and I'm proposing the article to AfD so that a consensus can be reached. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 01:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added some things to the bio that show the significance of his character on Banshee, as well as another bio I found on tv.com. ( sorry wasn't logged in when I sent it, and didn't know how to go back and change that sorry guys I'm still a noob haha) The assessment that his role on the tv series Banshee is a minor role I think is inaccurate he was a major villain starting season 2 of the show. I think that the way it was written before may have seemed that way but it's not a minor role in the series. I'm not too sure whether his role in the upcoming Bus 657 is major or minor as well because I can't find much on the project except for a picture of him and Dave Batista from a local Mobile Paper discussing the film.^[1] and didn't know if I should site that on his Tyson Sullivan page? Popcornfury (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.al.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2014/10/bus_657.html

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG and despite claims of a more major role in Banshee, there is no reference to either character or actor on that page. I notice also that Popcornfury added him as as a cast member to the articles on Bus 657 and Demonic - both on the same day that this article was created, so I'm now wondering about WP:NPOV. Mediavalia ^talk 12:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The character is listed on the banshee wiki if thats what you're referring to ^[1]?? But beyond that, (since I think that's probably not a citable source, I don't know??) someone who actually watched Banshee would very certainly know who he is. Which is pretty obvious through the interview I cited ^[2], since hes a pretty big character, therefore passing WP:NACTOR. Also I just assumed that when adding a character page I should link it to the other projects on WIKI, don't see how that would be WP:NPOV Popcornfury (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was making about WP:NPOV was that the two pages you linked to were updated by you on the same day that this article was created, i.e. it appears you were creating links to prove notability which makes me suspicious. Are you this actor, or related in some way to him? WP:NACTOR requires multiple, significant roles or a large fan-base or cult following, neither of which apply here. Mediavalia ^talk 14:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://banshee.wikia.com/wiki/Hondo
^ http://site.afterbuzztv.com/shows/tyson-sullivan-interview-afterbuzz-tvs-spotlight-on/

Oh I got ya, So in the future should I not link at the same time? Sorry I'm newer on the site, the name was already on the Demonic page but not linked so I linked it, I did add it to the Bus 657 page after I read the article I linked. No I'm not the actor nor do I know him, just a fan. I think as far as WP:NACTOR requiring multiple, significant roles it passes that having the credits that are cited, but could be a matter of opinion. "Or a large fan-base" He's got quite a few twitter followers^[1] but is that citable?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popcornfury (talk • contribs) 03:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://twitter.com/TysonSullivan

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cruiseable[edit]

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

I frankly would've PRODed too, but in case this gets removed and also if we need G4 later, here we are; my searches and examinations are noticeably simply finding unacceptable sources such as press releases, advertorial and PR speak, trivial passing mentions and the like; there's nothing actually substantial here. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This source provides significant coverage, but not finding other sources that do. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As NorthAmerica says, there do not seem to be multiple reliable sources that give this subject significant coverage. Vanamonde (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- advertorial content & insufficient coverage in RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Senad Gashi[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:BASIC as it "have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject" 173.52.99.208 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--user 173.52.99.208 has been blocked for block evasion. Papaursa (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX and the coverage is mainly routine sports reporting so WP:GNG is not met.Mdtemp (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't meet WP:NBOX. He also doesn't meet WP:GNG because the articles consist primarily of fight results, which do not constitute significant independent coverage. Other claims do not appear to meet any notability criteria and a boxer defeating a kickboxer in a boxing (hand-fencing) match is not surprising. I found no evidence that the Muay Thai and kickboxing champions he beat would meet WP:NKICK. Papaursa (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW--The "Muay Thai world champion" he beat failed to win his first 31 boxing matches. Mdtemp (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the reference does not mention anything about world champion (some titles) and I don't think this champion would meet notability criteria for kick boxers.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist: The discussion was removed from the log on 7 July 2016
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quixey[edit]

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

Entirely advertorial as all of this is either puffery, press releases or trivial coverage; nothing at all from it is actually convincing and my own searches are also mirroring this by not finding anything actually substantial. SwisterTwister talk 20:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per coverage in bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Also passes WP:AUD per national-level news coverage. The article would benefit from copy editing, because it reads as a press release in areas. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Lee, Ellen (April 13, 2012). "Tech startups use contests to identify talent". USA Today. Retrieved August 1, 2016.
Butler, Steven (May 29, 2014). "App search engine Quixey wants to take on Google". USA Today. Retrieved August 1, 2016.
Wohlsen, Marcus (April 21, 2015). "Quixey's Search Engine Is for Actions Not Words". Wired. Retrieved August 1, 2016.
Fannin, Rebecca (January 29, 2015). "Guru Fixer Takes Quixey On Fast-Track Journey To China And India". Forbes. Retrieved August 1, 2016.
Perez, Sarah (October 23, 2013). "Quixey's First Consumer-Facing App Offers A New Take On App Search & Discovery For Android Users". TechCrunch. Retrieved August 1, 2016.
Bort, Julie (June 9, 2013). "This 29-Year-Old Nabbed $24 Million Because He Can See The Future". Business Insider. Retrieved August 1, 2016.
Cheng, Roger (February 25, 2014). "Quixey's mobile search lets you dig deep into apps for results". CNET. Retrieved August 1, 2016.

Strong Keep Needing cleanup or a rewrite is not a reason to delete when there is a large amount of reliable, independent source material with in-depth coverage of the subject. Clearly and obviously passes the general notability guideline. Steven Walling • talk 06:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Dodd[edit]

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

Only one of the sources, a local newspaper, verifies anything; no indication of notability. Peter James (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has created a documentary on a specific incident in World War II, and has worked as a camerman, at one point rating second camerman. He is only 18, so he may well go on to be a truly notable cinematographer or director, but he is not there yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Not enough coverage at present for the subject to meet WP:BASIC. Qwfp (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Agree with nomination and previous comments. Derek Andrews (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New York Life Protection Index[edit]

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

Fails GNG. This is some random stat that got some minor coverage in 2011 from ESPN and some hype on launch. It was used intermittently in 2011, but doesn't seem to have gained traction, it's not cited regularly in sports news reports, and its page no longer exists. I'd argue that this was indeed temporary, and was little more than sponsored trivia. It's not even worth mentioning in the NYL article. Interestingly enough, it was created by User:Socialnyl, which means someone missed a UAA violation. I point this out because it indicates an ulterior promotional motive in article creation. MSJapan (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if this did once receive coverage, it was minuscule at best. WP:NTEMP states "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." (bold added) The prod was removed with the assumption that the article satisfied WP:NTEMP, but all that can be immediately found on it is a single ESPN article from one game in 2011. Beside that, first-party sites and Wikipedia mirrors. Lizard (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes[edit]

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

I've let this sit for a few weeks, but the article is filling up with trivia in an attempt to show notability. This still fails WP:BASIC and WP:NBAND. We have no idea when the group was formed. The extent of their recordings is one EP on an indie label. The article information is being gleaned from WP:PRIMARY sources, and from posters, concert dates, and other materials explicitly not allowed to be used by WP:NMUSIC to show notability. There is WP:COATRACKing - there is no need to use three sources to show a band member left.There is nothing established that shows this group as anything but local, and in fact, much of the material establishes them as exactly local: they had no discernible influence on any other act, no one has ever covered their music. Over half the article is post-band activities, which are not relevant to an article on the band, some of which is speculative. Their inclusion in a book with over 1200 other acts is not indicative of notability, nor, per WP:NOTINHERITED is the fact that some notable third-party had a flyer from the band that ended up in his estate, or that their co-producer won an award with another group. These are not things that an actual notable band has to have included in their article to show notability. The amount of work put in has not shown what is required for the article to pass the relevant guidelines. MSJapan (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to MSJapan post made at 19:23 31 July 2016. Quote:- "I've let this sit for a few weeks". So you have let this sit. OK then. So you say Quote:- "but the article is filling up with trivia in an attempt to show notability". Well, let's have a look at what's been going on with it since User:David Fuchs removed the AFD tag at 19:17, 15 July 2016‎. Well, User IP 51.9.15.175 to date has made 3 edits. These related to him writing Music for Film & TV. Being a Senior Lecturer in Audio Production. And his recordings were featured in the 2016 Video Promo for Belarus writer Sasha Romanova. Then we have an edit by User:Sitush at 23:21, 22 July 2016, who had changed "passed away" to "died". Then we have an edit by User:Karl Twist (That's me) at 10:26, 25 July 2016, adding "Two songs ended up on the AK 79 compilation". And at 10:54, 25 July 2016, I think I added Mastering work done. This is to indicate what I believe may be the arrival of a release. I also had tidied up the ref link that User IP 51.9.15.175 had put in. Then User:Warpozio had changed WEA to Warner Music Group. You say "filling up with trivia in an attempt to show notability". I say that's a massive overstatement!!!! You say Quote:- "The extent of their recordings is one EP on an indie label". What's that got to do with a band being notable or not??? Their label RTC has a catalogue of more than 185 releases. It also had artists like Dead Kennedys, UB40, Gerry and the Pacemakers released on it. The label also had the distinction of having a first, with the artists on their label having both an album and single at no 1 on the NZ charts. See Billboard, September 19, 1981, page 72. So this is not a self-released album. There's no need for you to even mention Indie label! Also the group received an IRANZ award for their mini album. You say Quote:- "The article information is being gleaned from WP:PRIMARY sources". Actually, the band has been covered quite well 3 times at least in Rip It Up. The band were featured in an article in the 25 September edition of The Auckland Star. The article about them also featured a portrait of the group. At current the article sits at National Library of New Zealand [2]. Before anyone even contemplates deleting an article. When it is known that such documentation of a subject exists, the responsible thing to do check it out! You say Quote:- "Their inclusion in a book with over 1200 other acts is not indicative of notability". Actually if you could please go back and re-examine this, Discography of New Zealand Popular Music, 1960-1990: Rock, Jazz, Folk, Blues, and Bluegrass. New Zealand Music This is a discography that covers 1230 audio recordings from a period of 1958 to 1987. It's not as you put it 1 band out of over 1200. It is a collection of 1230 recordings out of 10,000s of recordings made in New Zealand. It is a historically significant collection of recordings by New Zealand musicians of various genres. See Christchurch City Libraries * You say Quote:- "Over half the article is post-band activities, which are not relevant to an article on the band, some of which is speculative". Yes some of the article is post-band. But not over half. Please go back and have a look. Count the words! And "speculative", where????? And the post-activities are worth including as they are on thousands of other Wikipedia articles. Other stuff you've mentioned isn't really necessary to respond to. You have, I believe, been somewhat selective in how you've approached this. That's OK but, I do hope you're not being intentional in some of the things you have stated. You're grossly incorrect on much of what you have stated. BTW: The flyer thing is not an attempt to add to notability. It's just for historical interest and for the interest of the reader. Thanks Karl Twist 12:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Band does not meet any of the criteria under WP:BAND and none of the 50+ sources make any attempt to provide significant notability, quite possibly much of it is original research. Subject is heavily reliant upon one self-interested user. WP:FANCRUFT Ajf773 (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, Hi Ajf773, Quote:-, you say "Subject is heavily reliant upon one self-interested user". Ok, assuming you're referring to me, I'd like to show you where my interest lies. Now the editing that I have done in Wikipedia is only a fraction of some of the more dedicated editors and contributors. But, in my way I try to contribute a bit. So I'd like to show you where my interest lies. Earlier this year, I came across Alma Lloyd. This was up for deletion. Before I got in and did some improving, it looked like this. After some editing, I got it to here. Then, I came across the Ellis Brooks Auto Center which was nominated for deletion. Here is where the article was when I started. After 10 edits, I managed to get it to here. Of course I voted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellis Brooks Auto Center to keep. Then there was Patrick Pinney. Now that was some work. Before I started on it, it looked like this. After I did around 23 edits from April 6 to April 21, the article ended up looking like this. Of course User talk:Stewader91 and User talk:Mkrgolf did a couple of minor corrections. And as you can see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Pinney, I became quite involved in the discussion, and voted to keep. And as you can see I got involved in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alma Lloyd discussion. So as you can see, I have an interest in improving articles that are worthy and have notability. Same as what I am doing here. Also Fancruft shouldn't be used here. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD discussion is not about all the other articles you've worked on. We are talking about this specific band article. How is this article notable as per any of the twelve reasons list in WP:NBAND to be considered notable for inclusion in Wikipedia? Ajf773 (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Ok Ajf773, of course I know the AFD discussion is not about "all the other articles" I have worked on. And I have only shown a fraction of what I have worked on. But as you said, "Subject is heavily reliant upon one self-interested user. WP:FANCRUFT". I have just shown you where my interest lies. Just in case someone reading your post gets the wrong impression and thinks I'm someone fanatical or overly fond of this group. Or just in case some thinks I am in a moment of one-artist obsession. That's why showed you want I have done. Now you ask the question " How is this article notable as per any of the twelve reasons list in WP:NBAND to be considered notable for inclusion in Wikipedia?". Well there are >>> articles about them in the Issue 21, April 1979 edition of Rip It Up magazine, Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes by Dominic Free. They're mentioned here >>> also in Rip It Up again Rumours. They are also mentioned in another article in the Issue 21, April 1979 edition of Rip It Up magazine, Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes by Louise Chunn. I've come across another Rip It Up article that is in photo format as well as another mag / paper article similar. The band was >>> featured in an article in the 25 September edition of The Auckland Star. This is at the National Library of New Zealand Profile of Auckland new wave band "Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes. Their mini album release >>> was on a significant independent label RTC. The label is also notable and historically significant in New Zealand for a number of resons. They also received an IRANZ award for their EP! Also the duo Desire that Gary Havoc was a member of had their mini album released on the WEA label. There's a bit about Gary Havoc & Desire >>> here on the Elsewhere website. There's also other stuff about there about them in archives. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAND only needs to pass on one criteria. Obviously this fails on 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 or 10. I've never heard any of their music on regular rotation on multiple New Zealand radio stations, fails 11. Nor have they been substantial enough for a broadcast on TV or radio, fails 12. They certainly haven't been reputable for nationwide tours (let alone overseas tours) fails 4. None of the band members are notable enough for their own articles, fails 6. Has been prominent for the representation of their style of music within a city, even for Auckland it fails 7. That leaves 1, which requires multiple, non-trivial, published works that are both independent of the musician themselves and reliable. Based on the sources you provided, blogs are not a reliable source. 'Rip it Up' is hardly the same as 'Rolling Stone' in terms of music prominence, it's always been a gig guide and interviews with up and coming artists does not grant anyone instant notability. The Auckland Star is (was) an evening newspaper (not a reputable news source), I have no idea what elsewhere is. The article by Louise Chunn is about XTC, I'm sure you've heard of them. That alone is not sufficient enough to pass criteria 1. WP:FANCRUFT is a good representation of what this article is purporting. Ajf773 (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply* You say "WP:BAND only needs to pass on one criteria." Well it's passed on some!
* You said " I've never heard any of their music on regular rotation on multiple New Zealand radio stations, fails 11". Ok Ajf773, we're talking 1978 to 1981 or abouts. That's over 35 years ago. And I'm sorry but whether you have or haven't heard them on the radio or can or can't remember them is not an indication of them failing #11. If you were, we'd be using you as a reference.
* You say "Nor have they been substantial enough for a broadcast on TV or radio, fails 12". Again, how would you know? From what I understand, the band has appeared on television on various occasions back then.
* You say "They certainly haven't been reputable for nationwide tours". Well actually the research I have done and referring to advertising material shows that the group had toured the North Island of New Zealand. Between Auckland and Wellington and multiple places in between. Perhaps they didn't do the South Island. Being Auckland city boys and the South Island being a bit of a wild and cold place, they may have decided not to risk it.
* You say " Has been prominent for the representation of their style of music within a city, even for Auckland it fails 7." Actually, they were prominent on the scene. Very prominent at the time. Just as The Terrorways were and others in the Auckland Rock Scene.
* You say " None of the band members are notable enough for their own articles". Well, that may not be correct and I'm sure it isn't. I have a feeling that in time Gary Havoc may be notable to have his own article. Graeme Scott who played with Satellite Spies from 1991 to 1997, and from 2000 to 2001 former spies, and a band called Rated X is a possible candidate if more research turns up other bands. BTW: He also played on an EP by his daughter Kendall Lee.[3], [4]. But Gary Hunt is definitely a good candidate for consideration. He has a resume that reads out like the "Who's Who" in NZ rock history. Past and current. Hunt was in The Terrorways [5]. Recorded with them too. He played and recorded with Gregg McKenzie [6]. In 2015, he was playing in New Zealand in a group called led by former Pop Mechanix and Coconut Rough frontman Andrew Snoid', called Andrew McLennan & The Underminers. [7]. Later Hunt would later work with Hamish Kilgour.[8] They worked together and released the Hollie Fullbrook / Tiny Ruins Hurtling Through EP.[9], [10]. Another group Hunt had been playing in some time in the 2010s was The Wonderfish Collective.[11] They were a 15 piece group.[12].
* You say " 'Rip it Up' is hardly the same as 'Rolling Stone' in terms of music prominence,". Well, it may not be. But it is reliable source ads it is referred to and referenced many times. Please have a look at the Rip it Up page here in Wikipedia. It says by the mid 80s, they were printing 30,000 copies. Also it was unequalled as for many years as a New Zealand source of information on rock music. The back-catalogue of the mag "provides an unrivalled reference for information about the history of New Zealand's rock music". Comparing it to the Rolling Stone Magazine is like comparing Arthur Lee to The Rolling Stones and saying Arthur Lee has no influence. Now Please go back and read the article by Louise Chunn because it is NOT about XTC. The XTC aricle is by George Kay. The Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes article is by Dominic Free as is The Terrorways article. Gary Havoc (((I'm starting to think this guys name is a curse, I'm nuts for spending this much time on this))) and his crew are also included in an article called 5 New Bands in Auckland by Louise Chunn. So once again, the This is XTC article is by George Kay. The article about Gary Havoc & Crew is by Dominic Free. The other article that features them 5 New Bands in Auckland is by Louise Chunn.
* You said "The Auckland Star is (was) an evening newspaper (not a reputable news source)", Am I now reading this correctly, you're saying "The Auckland Star is (was) an evening newspaper (not a reputable news source)"??? Yes most news papers are corporate friendly but that's not the issue here. And I know that's not what you meant. You need to re-think what you have just said here as I'm going to have to say that thousands and thousands and thousands of edits in Wikipedia will have to be changed. BTW: The Auckland Star ran from March 1870 to 16 August 1991. Have a guess what the circulation was ? Sorry, but you haven't really shown anything that proves the band to non-notable. I'm sorry for saying this. And you're still using that " WP:FANCRUFT" again. This should not be thrown around like that.Karl Twist (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom and Ajf773. Frankly I'm surprised the previous nomination was "No consensus", 1 keep (the article creator) and 1 weak keep which was implicitly changed to a merge and 4 deletes, all based on wiki policy, seems clear. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Hi DerbyCountyinNZ. First of all please check your facts. There were 2 keeps. I was one. I am not the creator. User talk:Andru0711 was the creator!. Article was created at 19:48, 2 April 2016‎. I came in at 08:57, 20 June 2016, and started fixing it up to improve. In the previous nomination .... You also said Suspected either COI or COPYVIO (or it could just be poorly written). I asked you where the Please tell me where the COI is????. Please check the facts. I just want to straighten this part. Many thanks. Karl Twist (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, I have done a good amount of looking up on the band. I've been around for a while now and I know the historical value of this band. If it had no value, I wouldn't bother with it. The nominator for this intended deletion is being carefully selective in their wording in an attempt to prove a point. A previous accusation by MSJapan made at 14:32, 14 July 2016, shown here, "The fact remains the following: I said "possible" hoax, and you took it to mean "definite" and have been pissed-off about that ever since. "
was totaly incorrect and uncalled for. Strange that this should be thrown about. I'll reply to the nominators statements later. Got other things to do. Karl Twist (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately the band is still below the notability line for the reasons cited above, despite all the work, which is a pity. NealeFamily (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, Hi there NealeFamily, welcome to the discussion for the deletion of Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes. You say "the reasons cited above". Well, over a period of time, I'd like to show you that a good deal of the reasons above are not valid and some are (I hope) unintentionally misleading. I'll come back and explain a few thing that relate to this band and also what I believe is a misunderstanding of things. So I'll be commenting on some of the comments above. It's also interesting to note that two of the three voters to delete, plus the nominator have come back here in quick time. One of deletion voters attempted to back up his / her vote but saying something totally incorrect - " Suspected either COI or COPYVIO" Seems a bit misleading there. Karl Twist (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With all due respect, Karl, shut up about COI/COPYVIO; it prefaces every single argument you make, it has nothing to do with the content, and it hs nothing to do with whether the article should be kept or not. I made that comment in response to the state of the article here, which was unsourced and had not been substantially changed from its creation by an SPA a year previous. So where did the information come from if I couldn't find a source for it? Either another source that wasn't cited, or someone who had inside information. You never showed otherwise; you only screamed (repeatedly) that I was wrong. So I'm tired of you constantly claiming that the article should be kept because "COI/COPYVIO wasn't proven." The article was nominated for not meeting WP:NBAND. You had several weeks (your "period of time") to "prove" the group met NBAND, and they have not. The policy specifically prohibits usage of the types of sources you have used as indicators of notability, and I told you that in the last AfD, but you went ahead and filled the article with inappropriate material anyway. As an example, you cited an award to a concert flyer. Moreover, your opinion of the band is irrelevant - if you cannot show it by acceptable sources, your opinion on a subject does not matter. MSJapan (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MSJapan: Irrespective of any past dealings you may have had with the user, telling another Wikipedian to "shut up" about anything really isn't cool in any situation. KaisaL (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's funny how everyone else's conduct is consistently excused except mine. I was pretty sure baseless arguments weren't cool, either, nor repeatedly accusing people of being "carefully selective in wording to make a point", "misleading", and "totally incorrect" without proof, and that's only in this ANI. Yet if I go complain about getting templated on ANI for no reason, I'm told to "grow a pair." So which is it? Do we treat each other fairly, or do only certain people have that privilege? There's also something called unnecessary provocation, so I'm not buying the righteous indignation thing. MSJapan (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to MSJapan (post 17:23, 3 August 2016 ), actually I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about DerbyCountyinNZ who said COPYVIO. You said WP Hoax. Thanks. I wasn't referring to you. Karl Twist (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why I believe this nomination for deletion is wrong. I will soon be adding reasons for my belief that this Articles for deletion/Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes (2nd nomination) is wrong. I will add it in 2 parts. The first is why the band is notable. The second will be why I think the nomination is incorrect. So I'll add what I will below here. Other comments unrelated to this could be posted above here if possible. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My reason #1. When MS Japan nominated the article for deletion at 04:14, 19 June 2016, it looked like this. Yes it was pretty tragic! I can understand articles not having references and being hastily put together attracting the deletion nomination. I decided to investigate. Not only did I discover that the band was notable, I realized the "possible WP:HOAX" on MSJapan's 4:14, 19 June 2016 nomination was incorrect. To the nominators credit, when people are busy editing and doing other stuff, they may overlook certain things and not have the time to investigate a bit further. Well I did. In my follow up Reason #2, I'll go in to what my research has turned up. The first vote to delete was by Ajf773 at 09:01, 20 June 2016, which was only 4 mins after my edit at 08:57, 20 June 2016. And at that time, the page looked like this. So even if Ajf773 had looked at the page, the changes were only small. The only 2 references were from WorldCat and Discogs. Here [13] and here [14]. The second delete vote didn't arrive till after the 3rd relist at 01:19, 5 July 2016. This one was by User:DerbyCountyinNZ who at 03:58, 5 July 2016, said " Appears to fail NBAND and SIGCOV. Suspected either COI or COPYVIO (or it could just be poorly written).". Well, by the time DerbyCountyinNZ added the deletion vote, the article looked like this. Ok, possibly poorly written. DerbyCountyinNZ could have a point there. I'm not the tidiest guy around or a good proof reader. But I can't understand where the COI or COPYVIO applies. A following deletion vote but a good'n busy editor in a following vote mentioned "consensus". Yes it seemed to be heading that way. Sadly the previous votes sometimes ward off others from investigating further. Now the discussion was closed by User:David Fuchs at 19:17, 15 July 2016. And 16 days later at 19:23, 31 July 2016, it has been nominated for deletion a second time by the original nominator. Coincidentally in the same order, the other 2 deletion voters from the first round have voted to delete. For all their good intentions is it possible that they are just voting again because they believe what they did the first time? They haven't had time to do the research I have and look at the historical positioning of the band as well.
Now we're at the second nomination. I disagree with the first deletion vote by Ajf773 at 21:01, 31 July 2016. The group meets some of the criteria. Also the statement "one self-interested user." is wrong. As is "WP:FANCRUFT", which doesn't even apply here. The next delete vote from DerbyCountyinNZ comes with the statement, "1 keep (the nominator)". What is that ???? Who is that ???? Well, there were 2 keeps and 3 deletes. Also DerbyCountyinNZ said "1 weak keep which was implicitly changed to a merge". Well it wasn't changed to merge! Where was it changed?? The only other post by User:Grutness apart from the 2 that were made was a reply "Yeah, I could support that" to User:Robyn2000's suggestion of "Could this instead be turned into a paragraph in the The Terrorways article, then?", quite possibly as a way to save some of the history of the band if the article was deleted. This is a tactic used to preserve sometimes. And Grutness saying "Yeah, I could support that" is not a change to a merge. The weak keep vote stayed there!. So I count 2 Keep, 3 delete, not quite as you put it, "1 keep (the article creator) and 1 weak keep which was implicitly changed to a merge and 4 deletes". Now the first nomination was closed and a second one opened 16 days later. Still we haven't had time to access what is in the Auckland Star, a major newspaper (24 March 1870 to 16 August 1991) or others like The New Zealand Herald. Without the Auckland Star, the band is notable. But good to access what is in the article. Karl Twist (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It breaks my heart to say this, but Delete because the band just doesn't meet any of the criteria under WP:BAND. It's not possible to negotiate around this - Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes were not a significant enough band in the history of New Zealand music. I support adding a brief section to another article, such as Terrorways or something else if it is more relevant. Robyn2000 (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, Hi Robyn2000, how's it going. So far reliable sources that give an idea of the prominence the band are,
>>> Rip it Up Issue 21, April 1979 Page 8 - "Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes" by Dominic Free
>>> Rip It Up Issue 21, April 1979, Page 8 - "5 New Bands In Auckland by Louise Chunn"
>>> Rip It Up June 1979 Page 6 Rumours by Vince Eager
Elsewhere Jul 30, 2014"Desire: Broken Heart" by Graham Reid
>>> Auckland Star, 25 September 1979 "Profile of Auckland new wave band Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes" ......... But perhaps we're not allowed to use the Auckland Star as a reference because Ajf773 says .... "The Auckland Star is (was) an evening newspaper (not a reputable news source)". Is that right? Are we allowed to use the Auckland Star as a reference or does it just have the credibility of a cheap detective magazine?
>>> A good point by User:Grutness as per "Weak keep. The band definitely existed and is referred to a few times in the seminal "Stranded in Paradise: New Zealand Rock'n'Roll 1955-1988" by John Dix. Some notability in that (according to Dix) their EP was self-financed and successful, the first time that had happened with a New Zealand band, and as such kick-started to boom in self-released records ("Stranded in Paradise", pp. 219, 294). Ex GH&H member Gary Hunt later joined top NZ punk band The Terrorways, as well, which adds another nod to meeting NBAND." [15].
But, Robyn, before anyone considers the deletion so close to the last nomination, there should be further research. I was going to hope that one of the NZ'ers on Wikipedia might want to hop over to the library, but I'm wondering if New Zealand news papers have any kind of credibility. Ajf773 seems to think not (as far as the Auckland Star is concerned. Please read my replies to this member, see Revision at 14:29, 5 August 2016, as there are things stated by him/her that don't add up. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, my reply to Robyn2000.
>>> The band also got an IRANZ award for their EP.[16] Karl Twist (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the Further to the above.
>>> The group is mentioned in Stranded in Paradise: New Zealand Rock'n'Roll, 1955-1988, as per another member mentioning it. They did "a first:" in New Zealand that is notable. I followed it up. More on this later when I have time. Karl Twist (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin, please allow this discussion to continue as I am still researching and will attempt to come forth with further info over next week or two. thanks Karl Twist (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There may be some information in Audioculture which is worth including. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Grutness: Do we consider it RS? It sure looks like user content with no apparent editorial control - they're looking for anything from anyone, apparently; which is too bad, because it looks like an interesting resource. It appears they have financial oversight due to funding, but that's not content-related. Anyhow, there's nothing there other than a namedrop that "ex-Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes drummer Graeme Scott was in another band with Deane Sutherland, who started Satellite Spies" (I think; the article is somewhat jumbled, which is why I'm concerned about it in general - this article, by the way, was apparently written within the last day). However, there is neither an entry on the band, nor Gary himself. MSJapan (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be RS itself, but Audioculture kis pretty strict in requiring information to be sourceable, so it would indicate that there is published information available on the subject. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Grutness, thanks for that. I have seen about a half dozen references and bits and pieces about Gary Havoc and the ex-members. I'll check the rest out. I came across some website that archived Rip It Up, besides this one. I have to find it again as it had more stuff about Gary Hunt. Karl Twist (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to MSJapan, Quote:- "It sure looks like user content with no apparent editorial control - they're looking for anything from anyone, apparently". Not quite so! Sorry, I have to disagree here. The site is accurate. The editors there are well experienced in their field. One of the editors there is none other than John Dix, who is the author of the Stranded in Paradise: New Zealand Rock'n'Roll, 1955-1988. That's the book that goes a long way to confirm the notability of Gary Havoc & Co. The book confirms "The group is also notable for making history for being one of the first, if not the very first New Zealand band to self-finance their record and be successful with it. This act created a definite flow on effect for other bands." Yes you are correct that there isn't at this time a page for Gary Havoc or some members of his band. I have a feeling that there will be one very soon for Gary Hunt though. Both Havoc and his members are referred to multiple times and the entry (Which I have seen) that was done on the 6th is proof that there is on going contributions being made that will continue to feature the group and it's members. What needs to be understood is that even without the confirmation of their historical status by John Dix's Stranded in Paradise: New Zealand Rock'n'Roll, 1955-1988, articles about them in the Auckland Star and historical New Zealand magazines, the group is definite of New Zealand Rock history. Not only for the members that went through the group to play with The Terrorways, Satellite Spies, Hamish Kilgour, Hollie Fullbrook etc is the group of important historical value, they were part of the scene that influenced other bands. Anyway Gary Havoc recorded for 2 record labels that quality him RTC Records, and WEA. Another thing is that Google and other search engine don't always turn up valuable info straight away. Sometimes you have to look in another way. The other day I found some info on Gary Havoc and Co. that was in JPG / Pic format but I lost it. Looing for related stuff can sometimes turn up stuff you wouldn't otherwise get. It's a bit like aiming to the left of the target and hitting the object beside it to fall on the intended target. Karl Twist (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter - content from an established editor or professional writer in an unmoderated medium is not reliable. This is spelled out by WP:QS which says, Questionable sources are those that...lack meaningful editorial oversight. WP:SPS further indicates as na exception to the "expert rule", Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. You are doing nothing here but constantly arguing semantics with editors instead of arguing policy adherence with relation to content. You claim the band had an influence, but you haven't found a single act that says "we were influenced by Gary Havoc." An unreleased recording for a label does not meet WP:NBAND - it requires two major releases. They didn't have that. RTC was not a major label, and there's nothing in their article that proves that. I'd note you wrote said article, so what you're doing is creating a WP:WALLEDGARDEN of superficial notability; you're claiming that because there's an article on A, A is notable, so B is notable because it's associated with A, and A is also notable because of B. That's not how notability works. I also notice you like using the word "probably" in your edits to make assumptions about information you don't actually have available - that's WP:OR. You can't make a non-notable group notable, especially by relying on inappropriate sources. I assume you're also going to turn around and write Gary Hunt (as you insinuate) and then claim notability via association again. You simply aren't editing within policy - you're too busy writing your opinions to bother to understand how you should be editing. MSJapan (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has written for Audioculture, I can confirm that it does have editorial oversight and is quite thoroughly moderated. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll keep it in mind, then, although it wasn't of use here. MSJapan (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to (MSJapan post: 17:30, 7 August 2016) The requirements are met! Yes there are some references that can't be used as the main backbone for the article. These references, the sites, sources they come from appear on Wikipedia by the thousands in thousands of articles. They are only there to give breadth to the article and add other interesting facts as many articles have.
The reliable sources so far include ....
A)) Rip it Up Issue 21, April 1979 Page 8 - "Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes" by Dominic Free
B)) Rip It Up Issue 21, April 1979, Page 8 - "5 New Bands In Auckland by Louise Chunn"
C)) Rip It Up June 1979 Page 6 Rumours by Vince Eager
D)) Elsewhere Jul 30, 2014 "Desire: Broken Heart" by Graham Reid
E)) Auckland Star, 25 September 1979 "Profile of Auckland new wave band Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes" ......... But perhaps we're not allowed to use the Auckland Star as a reference because Ajf773 says .... "The Auckland Star is (was) an evening newspaper (not a reputable news source)". Is that right? If it was a morning or mid-day paper, would it be more reputable? I'm at a total loss here ????
F)) Pages Page 219, Page 294 of Stranded in Paradise: New Zealand Rock'n'Roll, 1955-1988 BY Dix (This describes the group making history in NZ as a first for self-financing their mini-album which opened doors for other artists. BTW: I may have another book by a Kiwi author.
G)) Mini Album Havoc RTC RTS 71012 (1979) on the NZ RTC label. A highly successful, notable and history making (See Billboard October 11, 1980, Page 58) NZ independent label.WorldCat, Discogs (they got an award for it)
H)) Mini album Desire (Gary Havoc & Suzy Devine) on the WEA label (major label). See Desire: Broken Heart at Elsewhere website.
I'll reply to other content in your pos (dated 17:30, 7 August 2016) later on. I have to say that there are things that you are saying that don't make sense. Karl Twist (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Draft instead as there's still not enough actually convincing coming from the article itself. SwisterTwister talk 20:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 4K resolution. (non-admin closure) Dane2007 (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2160p[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Is an alternate name for 4K resolution; the 4K article has better coverage of the idea in general. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to 4K resolution -- if it's another name for 4K resolution, this seems straightforward, as the latter appears to be the primary topic. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to 4K resolution. I agree with Rhododendrites; it does seem pretty straightforward to redirect and merge to the 4K resolution page, since 2160p is just another name for 4K and 4K is the primary topic. JudgeRM (talk to me) 16:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 4K resolution. It is fairly straightforward. While I do not think any content needs to be merged, some of the sources could be transferred. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as withdrawn as the collections listed at the website such as the national or state museums are sufficient (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sama Raena Alshaibi[edit]

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

I frankly would've PRODed but chances are that will be removed.... No permanent collections and frankly still nothing actually suggestive here aside from the apparently only best claim, a Scholar award; my own searches have simply still not found nothing anything else better. SwisterTwister talk 19:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nothing suggestive? Photographers may dream of (like Diane Arbus) having a book published by the Aperture Foundation; this photographer (or artist) has achieved it. She's also been exhibited with other unusually noteworthy photographers (example). As for collections, there's quite a long list in her resume. No, the latter is of course not a RS for such a claim, but have you tried and failed duckduckgoing for additional evidence for these collections? -- Hoary (talk) 22:46, 31 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

André Simoneau[edit]

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

WP:BLP, PR-toned and based entirely on primary sources (a press release from his show's own production company and IMDb) with no reliable source coverage in real media shown at all, of an actor and web series director. Actors do not get a free pass over WP:NACTOR, nor directors over WP:CREATIVE, just because they have IMDb profiles -- media coverage, sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG, has to be present to confer passage of a notability criterion. So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually locate better sourcing than I've been able to, but nothing here hands him a no-sourcing-required inclusion freebie just for existing. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable; it does read like a promo piece and has RS sourcing issues, as well. Kierzek (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any substantive coverage in any reliable sources, and I don't see any other claim to notability. Also concerned by the tone of the article. Vanamonde (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found no significant coverage from a reliable source. Has a Gemini award nomination but that's not enough. Gab4gab (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salshabilla Adriani[edit]

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

Not sure if this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Adam9007 (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and this should've frankly been BLLPROD tagged, searches are not finding convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and nothing of substance. Kierzek (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She appears to be a member of the Indonesian girl band Elovii [id] (~460.000+ Ghits, 25.700 Gnews), and judging from a cursory read via Google translation of a few of the ~823.000 Ghits on her own name, Salshabilla Adriani, she is not a nobody in her own country. Alas, I speak none of the languages of Indonesia, so I'm not really WP:COMPETENT here. @Adam9007, SwisterTwister, and Kierzek: what did you find, when searching for sources? I will delsort this hoping to get some input from editors who can vet the sources. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: I found a few (possibly) reliable sources, but none are in English. Do you want me to link to them here? Adam9007 (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd stick them in the article. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: I put them on the talk page. Adam9007 (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Indonesia Wikipedia has the same page; one would think that if she was notable for a stand alone article, it would be there and it would be more substantial. Kierzek (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is a 15-year-old, we need much more than a link to twitter to establish notability. BLP concerns are especially high with minors and so we should not create an article without having good sourcing, which we are as far from possible here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mohi ud Din Ahmad Jillani[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Article doesn't cite any independent sources or assert notability. FallingGravity (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not notable and not even enough "information" for a stub. Kierzek (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cannot see evidence of notability. Vanamonde (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hillier Parker May and Rowden[edit]

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

Contested Prod twice by User:DGG and User:K.e.coffman .Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG .Now there company has been bought by CBRE Group. See little need for separate article the information can be included in the CBRE Group article itself. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Four editors in total have raised issues with this article with tagging for notability, lack of references and COI in addition to the CSD and PROD. It was at one stage 8KB long now down to 0.5KB but still not notable. Sorry guys, but this just isn't the place for your "in memoriam" article. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as by far nothing at all convincing and based from what's currently listed, I consider this A7. SwisterTwister talk 17:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non-notable corporation. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a company that was in existence for 102 years, and for much of that time was a significant player on the London property scene, and latterly on the national UK property scene. It was sold in 1998 for $69 million – that is not a "non-notable corporation". Inter alia, in the interwar rolling out of shopping parades throughout the UK, "Woolworth’s is known to have collaborated closely with several property developers and their agents, including Hillier, Parker, May & Rowden, Second Covent Garden Properties and Central Commercial Properties, firms which routinely employed their own staff architects to develop parades." (Kathryn Morrison and Paul Stamper, Shopping Parades (Historic England, 2016), p. 15.) Brian Raggett, Senior Director of Hillier Parker, also served as President of the Royal Town Planning Institute. In a memorandum of 1999 submitted by CB Hillier Parker [the firm in its post-1998 incarnation] to a House of Commons Select Committee, it states that the firm "advises the public and private sectors on all aspects of retail agency, investment, planning, development and research". Research reports commissioned from it are cited in reputable secondary sources, e.g. here. The article is not an orphan: it currently has 3 articles linking to it, and no doubt further links could be found/created without too much difficulty. Notability really should not be an issue. The problem is that the article has been created and worked on by enthusiasts who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia protocols and conventions, and have failed to cite their sources, resulting in its current reduction to a stub. This appears to be a classic case of biting the newcomers. They should be guided and encouraged (as, I am pleased to see, Velella has tried to do), not shot down in flames. GrindtXX (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Further to the above, I have now had a chance to look at some of the print sources. Here are some quotes. "The two firms which built up a dominating lead over other estate agents in the multiple shop business [in the interwar years] were Hillier, Parker, May & Rowden and Healey & Baker. ... Hillier, Parker used to advertise in The Times and The Telegraph once a year that it had done business in the following towns, and manage to run through the alphabet from A to Z, giving the name of a town beginning with each letter." (Oliver Marriott, The Property Boom (1967), pp. 15–16.) "In 1922 Hillier, Parker began to issue annual reports regarding conditions in the property market, [and] [t]hese were quoted in the property columns of The Times, and The Daily Telegraph. [In the interwar years,] "Hillier, Parker grew to be one of the two leading commercial estate agents during this period." (Peter Scott, The Property Masters (1996), p. 41.) Those are in addition to several more incidental references in both books to the company or its reports that could be cited. I hope that's enough to persuade some of the deletionists of the company's notability. GrindtXX (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure that using pejorative terms such as 'deltionist' is particularly useful here. In any case, occasional mentions in even reliable sources may not be sufficient to reflect WP:SUSTAINED. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It was not my intention to use the term "deletionist" in a pejorative sense: I wasn't aware it had one. I meant it in an entirely literal sense: "one who has voted in favour of deletion". On the more substantive point, I fail to see the relevance of citing WP:SUSTAINED, which is a warning against coverage of topics whose apparent notability is fleeting and ephemeral ("brief bursts of news coverage"). I have quoted statements from two solid, scholarly secondary works that Hillier Parker was one of the two leading commercial estate agents in the UK over a 20-year period; and from a third (Morrison and Stamper) to the effect that it played a significant, if secondary, role in shaping the face of the 20th-century British high street. Incidentally, for those who may suspect I have taken quotes out of context, I have now found that a number of relevant pages from Scott, The Property Masters, are available on Google Books here. GrindtXX (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have 29 news articles from The Times Newspaper Digital Archive to use as a starting point. With citation reference, and URL to the electronic version, for each one. I confess to being a novice at this. Philjones573 (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Estate agents that did little for a hundred years until getting bought by a bigger estate agents? = non-notable. No in-depth coverage of anything approaching encycopaedic value. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, pretty much for the same reasons as Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi; being bought by a notable company doesn't make something notable in itself, and none of the "sources" provided above appear to do anything other than demonstrate that the company existed. While I applaud the enthusiasm of the authors there's nothing really to suggest that this was anything more than a fairly generic mid-sized estate agency—a total value of £42.5 million sounds impressive, but is fairly small beer for a London commercial property developer. (To put that in perspective, the market cap of CBRE—the company which bought Hillier Parker—is around $10 billion, and the average house price in central London is about £2 million.) If and only if sources can be found to demonstrate that this company has itself been the subject of coverage, rather than just passing mentions in stories about other companies or former employees who have gone on to be notable elsewhere, I'd have no problem seeing it recreated. As I've commented elsewhere, there are other wikis like MyWikiBiz and Wikia which would be ideal for hosting this if the creators just want to ensure that the record is kept alive and to have a general place for ex-employees to add their reminiscences, without the obligation to follow Wikipedia's rules on sourcing and notability, but Wikipedia itself isn't the place for it. (Disclaimer: I was the admin who declined the initial request for this to be deleted; I'm also the one who reduced the size of this article by about 90% by removing all the unsourced material; contrary to the accusations made above, this was not a case of "biting the newcomers", this was a removal after repeated attempts by multiple people to explain that Wikipedia is not a free webhost or an appropriate place to build a memorial site were ignored, and that it's not possible to buy notability by making donations to the WMF.) ‑ Iridescent 11:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

HPM&R was well known in England between 1900 and 1939. It advertised business and residential property for sale in local papers around the country. Some of them were: Kent & Sussex Courier. Surrey Advertiser. Liverpool Daily Post. Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer. Birmingham Daily Post. Bedfordshire Times and Independent. It managed all of the Crown Estate land in Regent Street and maintained an index of commercial property rents. This is referred in a letter published in The Times newspaper on 20 July 1932. The will of a Senior Partner was published in The Times on 4 Aug. 1950. The company was mentioned in the obituary of Brian Richards in The Times on 20 Feb. 2002.

HPM&R was appointed to raise the share capital for John Lewis, the department store. This was advertised in The Times on 12 May 1936. It valued Brooklands, the race track, and this was published in The Times on 25 June 1936. And London_Air_Park, published in The Times on 9 Oct. 1934.

After the war, Hillier Parker was behind the development of purpose-built town centre shopping. Manchester. Guildhall, Exeter. Banbury. Peterborough. The involvement of HPM&R was named on the business pages of The Times in editorial articles for each of these. Then the development of out-of-town shopping. On the business pages of The Times HPM&R is mentioned as advising Swindon Council on the development of a very large shopping centre that would attract shoppers from as far away as Wales. The Times, 4 May 1994.

As for commercial property. In 1998 Hillier Parker had 4 offices in London, 3 Scotland, 9 in Europe, 5 in Australia, 5 in USA. The letting of the Egg Marketing Board's new building was the subject of a City Pages article in The Times: Our Property Market Correspondent. "Egg Board's New Building." 20 Oct. 1958.

Its valuation work for British Land and Great Portland Estates was mentioned twice in The Times on 12 June 1990. Matthew Bond. "Unreal time for valuers and investors in real estate". The Times Digital Archive. Web. 2 Aug. 2016. Senior partner David Martin of HPM&R was named in the article and his words were reported by Matthew Bond, business columnist of The Times.

Hillier Parker was named in two High Court actions which were both reported in The Times. Sorry I haven't got the exact dates of those right now. In one, around 1900, Hillier Parker defended itself against a claim of negligence which did not succeed. In the other, in more recent times, Hillier Parker acted for a large commercial property company that was being sued by another company.

I sincerely apologise for my difficulty getting started on Wikipedia. I am sorry for my failure to understand how the referencing system works. I have third party hosting arranged now for supporting material. I am extremely sorry that a goodwill gesture by HE Couch formerly of HPR&R has been interpreted as an attempt to 'buy notability' which is most regrettable and absolutely not the case whatsoever. This has been rightly and ferociously criticised, I have apologised for this already and apologise again now.

Re statement above that requests were ignored. I didn't ignore requests, I responded to them but certainly at first I did not do a good job of explaining. I am sorry for being so slow about it.

Philjones573 (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there seem to be a myriad print sources; I'm unsure as to their quality, however. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There appears to be a clear consensus to delete this article. Disregarding the fact that two of the three comments supporting "Keep" are from the same person, and were solicited by the other person who supported "Keep," there's simply not enough material to support a claim of Notability for a defunct company. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What has "defunct" got to do with anything? Wikipedia deals in historic notability as well as current notability. And this is the first time I've seen offering guidance to an inexperienced editor described as "soliciting". GrindtXX (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The textbook "The Property Boom" by Oliver Marriott is mentioned in this article from The Daily Telegraph newspaper:

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/3343170/From-Blitz-to-boom.html

And the book talks about HPM&R quite a lot. I have not seen the book yet. There is reason to believe that the subject was instrumental in making the British High Street look the way it does today. I ask for a stay of execution to give me time to gather my sources. I have started with a lot of mistakes but do believe that there is merit in the subject.

The dictionary definition of "defunct" is "no longer existing or being used". Only the name HPM&R is no longer used. The new owner paid good money for the business because they saw the value in it and continues to operate those interests.

I am surprised that repeated mentions in The Times going back a century attracts the comment "unsure of quality". The Estates Gazette is the number one publication for the commercial property world. In Estates Gazette 150 Years Special Anniversary Supplement, 1858-2008, published 31 May 2008, HPM&R is specifically mentioned. I have not had a chance to search the archives of Estates Gazette, yet. Again I ask for time to complete the job.

Philjones573 (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - @Philjones573: While I can appreciate your enthusiastic defence of an article you have significantly contributed to, none of the comments you have made address the core reason for the Deletion nomination. The subject of the article fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORG - as has been said before, adding whatever reliably sourced and verifiable information you have to the article for CBRE Group may well be the best course of action. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment above "did little" can be easily countered by pointing to the fact that HPM&R designed the Bluewater shopping centre in Kent, one of the best known shopping centres and a model for many others. Such as the Bentall Centre in Kingston, which was built with advice from HPM&R. These were used as examples for further developements in Europe. It then leased retail units at Bluewater on behalf of Lend Lease, the owner of Bluewater; retail leasing being another activity of HPM&R. Source: Hillier Parker Centenary Brochure. Published 1996.

Could the HPM&R article be labelled a stub with the legend on it "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it". There is plenty of reliably sourced and verifiable material available, some of which I have referred to above, and more of which is still to be collected. The following article from Property Week:

Hillier Parker: privately owned once more: http://www.propertyweek.com/home/hillier-parker-privately-owned-once-more/3014186.article

says, "if anyone ever writes the history of Hillier Parker"... well that is what I am having to do now. I never expected to become the historian of Hillier Parker in the same way as Margaret Gurowitz is the company historian of Johnson & Johnson ("Chemical vs natural, article in Financial Times Magazine, 30/31 July 2016).

Adding to the CBRE page doesn't seem to be a suitable option because CBRE is an American company that originated in 1906. It seems hard to simultaneously describe the activities of one company in California, with another in Britain, on a single page.

HPM&R was the Foxtons of its day in Britain in 1900-1939. It advertised in many local papers weekly all over the country. Unlike Foxtons, HPM&R was a much bigger organisation that dealt with more than residential sales. It dealt with commercial too, shops, offices, hotels for redevelopment. Not just sales but valuations as well, rental management, and then went on to become a company with global reach. Some of which I have alluded to above and on the Talk page for the (barely started) article itself.

For example, the Grand Hotel in Sunderland was redeveloped and HPM&R's involvement in that was reported by Gerald Ely, in "£2m plan for derelict hotel site" in The Times on 11 Mar. 1974.

Hillier Parker was appointed by the Department for the Environment to advise a consortium of 16 local authorities on 'the impact of superstores on market towns'. It also advised local authorities on 15 development schemes in town centres. Source: Hillier Parker Centenary Brochure. Hillier Parker's word was used to help decide what shops should be where and what they should look like. That means it did have "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society..." according to the section "No inherent notability" aka WP:ORGSIG.

Philjones573 (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has 23 references. Most are to editorial in The Times newspaper. The rest are to British Newspaper Archive; two textbooks; and the company's own literature. I have started contributing to other pages. To Castle_Quay_Shopping_Centre I added the detail about the stone plaque commemorating its opening. Which also explains the change of name of the shopping centre, from Castle Centre, to Castle Quay. To Gamages I have added an account of its auction which was reported in The Times in 1931. I have more source material to add to the article; so it is not finished yet.

Philjones573 (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Splinter Cell characters[edit]

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

This list of fictional characters is almost entirely primary source video game trivia and altogether not independently notable from the main series. The characters, or anything noteworthy about them for inclusion in an encyclopedia, could be adequately described in a simple Character section based on the current sourcing. (Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. See ?) czar 08:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 08:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 08:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only five references, with two of them being IMDb and the rest show even less reliablity. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of characters appearing in multiple independently notable works are routinely and properly kept, as the content could be included in any of the main articles, but is instead placed in such lists for SIZE issues, as well as to keep people from creating standalone articles on clearly NN individual characters. See WP:CSC item 2. Jclemens (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable list of characters, no significant coverage by reliable sources. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Keeping a crufty article that lacks reliable sources just to prevent crufty unsourced spam from proliferating is a terrible reason to do so. Nha Trang ^Allons! 23:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of poor refferencing, article has a lot of information and a stream of viewers. The article needs to be better made, yes, but that is not reason for deletion. List articles are common and tend to be poorly made compared to others, however, they serve a purpose.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryirregularuser (talk • contribs) 04:14, 8 July 2016

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not an argument. You're saying WP:BEFORE, but it fails WP:LISTN. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. These are characters that appear in a successful multi-media franchise (video games and books based on the games). The individual entries do need some cutting down, but the list as a whole shouldn't be deleted. Many sources with editorial control write about the characters in the series and the development behind them in more detail than would be appropriate to place on the page of any particular game article: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] etc. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those article are either (1) about Sam Fisher (Splinter Cell), who already has an article, or (2) are routine coverage of the games and their development. Especially the latter links are brief news snippets on game development, and they all fit in the context of their respective articles. czar 13:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously game reviews will talk primarily about the protagonist of the game series. That doesn't mean that they don't talk about other characters (e.g. Andriy Kobin, who as a key character in one of the demo levels available to reviewers, gets a paragraph or two in most of the game reviews). But all the reviews contains at least a full paragraph on the supporting cast with descriptions, and the various other sources also feature enough information on various characters in the list to be too big to fit in a character section (e.g. my 5th link has a 3:30 video on the character in question, the 6th link to IBT Media has two paragraphs on why certain characters in the game don't fit in with the theme of previous games, the 1st link to Financial Post has two paragraphs on the motivations of President Caldwell), and those above sources are just for the latest game. Searching beyond the latest game gives more mention to characters that have more prominence in those games such as Grim ([25], [26], [27]).

Characters are also discussed over issues such as properly respresenting aging in gaming [28], potentially lacking female characters [29], and being realistic examples of female characters [30]. Sure it's routine coverage for gaming characters, but when reliable sources routinely devote entire paragraphs or entire articles to individual or groups of non-protagonist characters from a series, that passes WP:LISTN. Sources publishing on the game development behind certain characters would also point towards real world notability of those characters. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your response doesn't preclude my comment that the coverage is largely of the characters in individual games and not implying any larger importance. Our standard is to cover those characters in the context of their game articles (which is why they have Characters sections when necessary) and to cover recurring characters in the main series article (whose Characters section is currently famished) such that we only split out summary style when necessary. As of now, there is not enough coverage or sourced information to warrant a split from the parent section. czar 00:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of the cast of Splinter Cell in terms of prominence of female cast, how they were affected by improved graphics technology, and realistic portrayal of females (links 12-14) aren't about individual games and do imply a larger importance. The links/reviews about President Caldwell and Grim cover their actions and roles in two games, and that's only from searching reviews for two games; searching for earlier games (5 not covered by the above searches) and the books (7) would lead to more sources about the recurring characters. I'm perfectly okay with cutting down and moving the information on the characters who actually only appear in individual games to their game article, but it makes no sense for characters that recur throughout the game and book series to have their story split up between potentially up to 14 articles, so this list should be kept as a "Characters of Splinter Cell" article which like Characters of Halo would only focus on the recurring and/or major characters of the series, which would be entirely in line with WP:SUMMARY. No reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - That there has been a precedent for character lists really doesn't matter. As of late, there has been a precedent for deleting those that fail to establish notability. There is no reason that the information needs to be covered. There is nothing truly essential that will take away from a person's understanding of the series' articles. Absolute core characters can be adequately described in the main articles, summary style or in very succinct lists. I'm not seeing anything relevant glancing at the above links either. TTN (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2016

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 00:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve sourcing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got an actual ground there on which you're advocating keep? Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He gave an actual ground: "improve sourcing", which implies that he disagrees with the arguments in the nomination statement about notability not being established through available, reliable sources. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any examples of more sources? WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are 12 independent, reliable sources that cover these characters in varying amounts of depth that is the topic of a thread of discussion at this AfD. All of those, if added, would be improvements to the sourcing. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the sourcing on these characters isn't there. The sources listed above mention one or another of these minor characters in passing, at best, and certainly do not provide enough information for the article content. Adding those sources would be an improvement but they, and others like them, just aren't enough to establish that such a list is needed. Ca2james (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I struggled with closing this for a while, and eventually came to the conclusion that if I was struggling that much, it probably meant no good consensus had emerged yet. The big question that hasn't really been answered yet is whether the specific sources presented here are sufficient to meet WP:LISTN, so hopefully people can concentrate on figuring that out. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On the basis of the lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Note that the notability of Splinter Cell is not in question, but the characters as a group have very little coverage. Also note that the argument that people visit the page has nothing to do with its notability under Wikipedia policies. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: As much as I hate the bar being raised for character list articles now (as well as the fact that I agree with Jclemens that character lists should generally have their own article), I'm not seeing quite enough coverage to have this one as its own article. However, this should be redirected, not delete. Deletion should be a last resort, per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD-R, as well as to preserve the content for any future potential the article may have. The character section at Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell works as a target. Kokoro20 (talk) 00:11, 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 as another has suggested nothing else and the improvements suggest convincing (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virtus Health[edit]

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

This article is partially written like an advertisement for the company and I do not see the notability for why it should be on Wikipedia. The CSD was contested and I have therefore converted to AfD. I would recommend that it is deleted. Dane2007 (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple reliable sources writing about this company, including the WSJ, Canberra Times and Financial Review: Passes GNG. It's also the largest IVF provider in Australia. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability clearly established, even if the article is poorly written. Once again, quality of sources or of article is not a factor in a notability discussion. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- "largest fertility provider" and "publicly traded company" suggests notability to me. Worth pruning and keeping. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Management cockpit[edit]

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

Buzzword-fest, no notability asserted, nothing but a dicdef so thick with corporate doubletalk that I don't even know what it's trying to say. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence this is actually a widely used term. The sources provided are limited . In fact clicking on the 2nd source doesn't say anything about this term. LibStar (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete: Found a couple of book sources. One is an English language publication by creator here and the other is in a summary of a 2014 Lisbon conference called Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management (does this infer notability?). See here. I'm not convinced it's the same management cockpit and makes different claims about origins (technically not mutually exclusive). It's poorly sourced and quite arcane. I'm not a fan of much of the management stuff here (maybe just not a fan of management in general?) but at least other articles add information rather than just list the central aspect of the theory. It seems like this is a fringe theory of limited notability perhaps the wrong side of acceptably encyclopaedic. Rayman60 (talk) 22:14, 31 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nirahua Entertainment Private Limited[edit]

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

Advertising, facts stay unclear, awards are won on a local festival. Recreation of Nirahua Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. that was speedy deleted as copyvio. The Banner talk 02:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this was speedied....but removed with absolutely no explanations by the author, and I myself planned to nominate for deletion but feared it would be removed also, so I was reluctant and thus wanted to wait until there was a lower AfD count until nominating, examining this has found nothing at all minimally better for substance and notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above clearly promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is established consensus to keep the information, and a WP:MERGEPROP may be filed on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Bangladesh Premier League squads[edit]

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

Delete. This is in direct breach of WP:IINFO and has multiple issues. If not to be deleted, then please to merge into 2015 Bangladesh Premier League. The same is applying to 2012 Bangladesh Premier League squads and 2013 Bangladesh Premier League squads which are both also in breach of WP:IINFO, again to be deleted or alternatively merging into respectively 2012 Bangladesh Premier League and 2013 Bangladesh Premier League. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 14:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as the info is already in the 2015 Bangladesh Premier League article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is seeming to me that this discussion ending in deletion is setting a precedent here. Very similar in using statistics only and in breaching WP:IINFO. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 10:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG, sources: [31], [32], [33]. --Zayeem ^(talk) 01:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This satisfies the criteria for being a List article with a notable topic. Notability is indicated by coverage in reliable sources per Zayeem. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 2015 Bangladesh Premier League. Important information is already at that article, don't need a separate squad article. Joseph2302 19:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DataparkSearch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable Internet search engine. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ads nothing to Wikipedia SRich (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Copy/Paste comment of HowardBGolden (talk) from the first AfD 6 years ago:

"DataparkSearch is discussed in the following scholarly articles:

"Open source search and research" in Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Research issues in digital libraries. Abstract: "In this paper, we present a review of criteria for the evaluation of open source information retrieval tools and provide an overview of some of those that are more popular." Since this article is behind a paywall, I will quote the relevant part: "DataparkSearch is an GPL-licensed open source system for indexing and searching a Web site, group of Web sites, intranet, or local system. DataparkSearch is built on top of a relational database, which must be installed separately."

"Open source libraries for information retrieval" in IEEE Software. I don't have paywall access to this article at home, but I do at work.

Update I read this article at work. It is a dense five page article which compares and contrasts five open source search engines. It has a significant description of each engine. A notable characteristic of DataparkSearch is that it is the only engine of the five that can be used with Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Thai languages. Abstract: "We all use search engines to browse the Internet or our desktops. But how can we engineer such functions professionally into the applications and systems we build? Vesna Hassler of the European Patent Office has looked into several open source libraries for indexing and information retrieval, which you can use for application and system development. She compares a variety of criteria, such as query structure and ranking, and provides useful hints on installation and security as well."

My own research via citeseerx show few other conference proceedings, not sure if enough for notability. However, these sources should have been used to improve the article after the first AfD (exactly as wrote closing admin of said AfD).Pavlor (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- uncited promotional content. No notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ASI Controls[edit]

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

fails WP:N. There was a footnotes tag that has been on since 2013. No footnotes have been added. The references that are there can't be found (at least by me) and it's unknown if they are about the company itself or about something else. A google news search for the company shows 5 results, all are press releases except [34] which is on techtree.com, a non-notable source.} CerealKillerYum (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 16:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appropriate article on historical company. You can't expect to find material in GNews for noncurrent subjects. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 31 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) 16:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Campling[edit]

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

Non notable bit part actor. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has a lot of roles but none are significant roles in notable productions. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of his roles rise to the level of significance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 16:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NACTOR requires significant roles in multiple notable productions, which this individual does not have: his roles are essentially trivial. Vanamonde (talk) 13:12, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Chaderjian[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, self-promoting, with no claim of significance JMHamo (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 16:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for 2 reasons. Firstly there is hardly any secondary coverage about the subject. The subject has written multiple news articles, but these are not independent sources and there is little which discusses the subject. Secondly, I see that the author User:Chaderjian seems to have tried to request deletion (diff. I will go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B. S. Bhalla[edit]

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

Officer is just mid level management. Delete. Being the administrator of a Union Territory does not make someone notable by just holding the post. For non Indian editors there is a difference between Administrator and Lt Governor &Governor. The former being a bureaucratic post appointed by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the latter being a political post appointed by the President on advice by the Prime Minister and his cabinet. Uncletomwood (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Union Territories are of a level to confer automatic notability to their administrators.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify as to how? Under what parameter? In the same way then, a District Collector, Superintendent of Police and a Commissioner of Income Tax of a district should also be notable. Uncletomwood (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 16:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:06, 31 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) 16:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Kundra[edit]

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

Officer is just mid level management. Delete. Being the administrator of a Union Territory does not make someone notable by just holding the post. For non Indian editors there is a difference between Administrator and Lt Governor &Governor. The former being a bureaucratic post appointed by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the latter being a political post appointed by the President on advice by the Prime Minister and his cabinet. Uncletomwood (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - Non-notable minor regional official. Engleham (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 16:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:06, 31 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) — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Science Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what the notability criteria for such organizations are, but it appears to be similar to Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, EPSRC, or other national research councils or funding organizations. Of course, the article needs some work, but I believe it should be kept. --Schlosser67 (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Schlosser67: Check out WP:ORGDEPTH, which pertains to this organization. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few references. Some more would be nice to have. --Schlosser67 (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Substantial part of Czech research is funded via GACR. Schlosser67 provided some refrences, I will look for another.Pavlor (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a government supported funding agency can arguably make it inherently notable, but I'm seeing enough from secondary sources listed in the article.[35] Definitely needs more secondary coverage, but it meets the minimum requirement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 16:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that there is a very strong presumption of notability for national foundations to promote science and technology. It is far better to improve such articles than try to delete them. This one has been improved, thanks to Schlosser67. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:51, 31 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. (non-admin closure) Dane2007 (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muffins (album)[edit]

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

No discussion of the album or production that I could find; no reliable sources appear to exist; not even mentioned in the Hoobastank article so a redirect doesn't seem beneficial, although attempts to redirect have always been reverted. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hoobastank and protect to prevent undoing, no notability per WP:NALBUMS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 16:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:04, 31 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) Dane2007 (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allan R. Bomhard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No claim of notability. I was not able to find evidence of notability. He does not seem to have an academic appointment and his publications are in fringe areas of linguistics and most selfpublished. The three reviews supplied as sources are unfavorable (one calls his etymologies and revconstruction "bad en masse", the other calls them "highly personal") showing that his work has not have a major impact in the field, suggesting strongly that he fails WP:ACADEMIC and GNG. The fact that he is listed in one source as a specialist in nostratic is not itself very impressive given that Nostratic theory is not part of mainstream linguistics - and given that he has been unable to find employment or peer reviewed publication venues for most of his work. There are also no sources for any biographical information.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His ideas are not supported by the scholarly community, thus failing point 1 for academics, the only one he comes anywhere near meeting, and he does not meet the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He did succeed isn getting his work published by 2 major publishers in the field, Brill and deGruyter. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is this enough to establish notability? Should we rewrite wp: academic and wp:gng? Maunus

keep Linguists argue about the darnedest things. That said, and I want to admit that I have not actually read through to the end of the reviews I see as supporting keep - I read them just far enough to see that his ideas (part of an arcane scholarly debate) are being seriously encountered, not merely dismissed as fringe, in reviews in sundry scholarly journals of several of his books (some for which he is a co-editor of a collection).E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I concur with DGG, there are over 4,000 library holdings and they are major publishers. I would've kept this myself simply because of these 2 things. SwisterTwister talk 17:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I may be mistaken but I don't think library holdings are ever mentioned in any of our policies on notability. Maunus

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cantaloupe Levels[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBUSINESS. Little assertion of notability in the article itself (once all the self-promotional material is removed) - relies on either WP:PRIMARY or WP:NOTRELIABLE or WP:SELFPUBLISH sources. Dan arndt (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we are not a web host for NN little reports! Bearian (talk) 18:09, 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 00:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:03, 31 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 Stockholm University. (non-admin closure) Dane2007 (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stockholm University Department of Human Geography[edit]

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

I am not aware of specific notability guidelines for academic departments, but this unsourced article does not convince me that this department requires its own article, distinct from the main Stockholm University article. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Stockholm University. I don't think any content in the article makes the case that this department has notability distinct from the University itself or that it meets WP:GNG on its own. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Parts_of_schools_and_school-related_organizations is pretty clear that there is no notability unless the department has made a significant contribution to its field. Mostly an indiscriminate list without any standalone notability or anything worth adding to Stockholm University. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even worth redirecting. The basic standard used in various discussion on academic departments seems to essentially be "world famous" , which this one is not. There's no reason to even redirect, unless we were to make a redirect for every academic department of every university. I think anyone knows that in looking for information, they should start at the university article. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I endorse DGG's reasoning on this matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: In this case, leaving a redlink is just bait for it to be recreated. Plus WP:BEFORE pretty much stands for the proposition that where a merge is possible, it's worth doing. If the department ever gets world-famous, the article history will be preserved. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:29, 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Groove Cruise[edit]

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

Previous deleted as G11, but the present version has a little less puffery. Not really my field, so I bring it here without any recommendation one way or another. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article still reads in a promotional tone and I feel there would be nothing left if that was cut out. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 03:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Online Loyalty Association[edit]

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

Non-notable association tagged since June 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - may be moribund. No recent online sources. Official website is dead. Blythwood (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed: no evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability; appears to be strictly promo content. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- strictly promo content/lack of interest. Lucasstar1 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hawk's Vengeance[edit]

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

Film shows little to no evidence of notability (WP:NFILM or the WP:GNG). Tazerdadog (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It also seems to be known as Hawk's Revenge. Establishing notability for direct-to-video Gary Daniels films would be very difficult, and I don't see anything beyond capsule reviews, which NFILM says can't establish notability. Sometimes Black Belt does film reviews, and sometimes Billboard covered direct-to-video releases back in the dtv boom in the 1980s and early 1990s. However, there doesn't seem to be anything indexed at Google Books or archive.org, the two places where I usually find these archived. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Network Technologies, Inc[edit]

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

no indication of meeting WP:CORP. References given are all directory entries. Google searches not finding any significant coverage in WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References given in Talk page also had user contributed entries from reliable sites in addition to references in books, ecommerce platforms. Anyway the demand for additional references is noted and copy for the article will be reworked with additional reliable sources. Sboroflies (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forum posts, ebay listings and product descriptions are not WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as noting at all close to minimally convincing notability, examining this has found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 18:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promo content on a non notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fattmerchant[edit]

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

Not all independently notable with none of the sources actually being convincing, note the Forbes is only an interview and everything else is simply localized PR; my own searches have found nothing better regarding substantially significant coverage (only either trivial news or sprinkle-jacketed PR. SwisterTwister talk 18:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The company meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. The company also passes WP:AUD because it has received national news coverage, and furthermore, such coverage is from sources based in other states (e.g. New York, North Carolina). See source examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Meet The Woman Who Is Trying To Change The Credit Card Industry". Fast Company. (Fast Company is a magazine with national circulation in the United States, and is based in New York. This has extensive content about the company, and is not limited to interview content. Definitely not "local", nor PR.)
FSR Magazine. (Print magazine with national circulation in the U.S., based in North Carolina)
Orlando Sentinel
Orlando Sentinel
WOFL news
Lundine, Susan (April 29, 2016) "WWMB 2016 Business Owners of the Year: Suneera Madhani". Orlando Business Journal. (subscription required) (Lundine is the author and the Managing Editor for the publication.)

Both the WORL and Business Journal are local news simply talking about their own local businesses and, as said before, Business Journal is notorious for this about simply consisting of interviews and businesspeople talking about their own local businesses. The first two simply mention them a select number of times and that's simply about charging and pricing. The Sentinel articles say exactly what the company is, a "promising" starting company. None of these are actually substantially convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The paywalled Orlando Business Journal article does not appear to be an interview. Local sources are not disqualified to apply toward WP:CORPDEPTH, particularly when other sources provide non-local coverage, contributing to passing WP:AUD. The age of a company is not congruent with topic notability per WP:NTEMP. See also: WP:NEWCOMPANY. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 17 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! 12:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 16:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fast Company ref is an advertorial. The firm is not notable, at least not yet. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A company with some local notability but not much else; the coverage does not amount to "significant". K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake (Moby song)[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough content and coverage to have an article ([36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. Worst case scenario should be a merge to the album. --Michig (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSONGS which reads, "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." At present this is a discography entry which hardly constitutes "enough material." No objection to the material being used in the album article. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:15, 17 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! 10:16, 17 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! 12:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 16:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:01, 31 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Industrie[edit]

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

Completely unsourced and advertorially-toned article about a band with no particularly strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, a band is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they exist; reliable source coverage about them in media, demonstrating that they pass a notability criterion, must be present for an article to become earned. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Some coverage found ([41], [42], [43]). There may be more offline given the era in which the band started. --Michig (talk) 09:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:20, 17 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! 10:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if kept, the article needs a good clear-up... the history seems to be based on the biography on the band's own website so it doesn't meet the requirements of an independent, reliable source, there are lots of unsourced and POV statements like "pounding dance beats, driving percussion and unrelenting electronic bliss" and "it seemed Levesque was not content to let the music remain stagnant. It continued to evolve", and I can't find where the critic reviews come from either, or the quote that Levesque has a "smooth 'Gahan-esq' (sic) voice". Richard3120 (talk) 16:22, 18 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! 12:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 16:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the suggested sources above is simply still not enough, there's simply nothing else convincing of a substantial article. SwisterTwister talk 17:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ketchum Inc. Since there is interest in a possible merge, history will be left intact for that purpose. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Kotcher[edit]

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

Nothing to actually suggest his own notability apart from the company itself and even then there's nothing to suggest he has inherited notability from that company; my own searches have simply found exactly what this article contains, PR....nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 11 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! 12:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the awards, hall of fame nomination and power list ranking show signs of importance in the field. There's a few questionable sources here and some fluff, but seeing enough sans those to meet WP:GNG. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 11:37, 22 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! 12:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 16:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ketchum Inc. I am not convinced that the person is independently notable of the company. This is probably the best source I found, but it still doesn't justify an entire article. Most other sources are press releases. At this point, I see this as a BLP1E which would be covered in the context of the company. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge of relevant content to Ketchum Inc., which presently only has a passing mention. This will improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turnberry Ocean Club[edit]

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

The best source there is, the Forbes, but even then, it's simply talking about what the hotel will contain, my own searches found numerous and numerous amounts of local PR pieces, still nothing convincing and the current information still suggests PR itself. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 10 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! 12:09, 17 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! 12:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 16:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GEOFEAT. Condominium developments are artificial buildings. Usually, these may be notable due to certain historical or cultural reasons. In this case though, there are no such reasons (in fact, the project is ongoing and the building hasn't been completed yet). There is also nothing else which distinguishes it from other condominium developments. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOFEAT. Perfectly explained by Lemongirl942. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mirolla[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, which just states that he exists and then lists his books, without claiming or reliably sourcing anything that would get him over WP:AUTHOR. And on a Google News search, I find a few glancing namechecks of his existence in community weekly newspapers, but nothing that would satisfy WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we can not have articles that have as their only source the subject's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added two references plus an interview. I have also found several book reviews I also found. With significant coverage across multiple sources the subject passes WP:GNG. Also, the author won the Brissani award for his novel Berlin in 2010. The subject has achieved notability. Zpeopleheart (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG, there are mulitple reviews of his works, presume that Zpeopleheart will be including them in a reception section of the article as it has a 'major edit' tag, otherwise will include them here later on. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, needs independent RS sourcing, if you can find it. Certainly would make your case much stronger for keep. Kierzek (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, here are reviews i have found online (some short but sweet:)):-

Publishers Weekly of The Facility - "Canadian poet and author Mirolla (Berlin) mixes theology, cloning, and Beckettlike absurdist alienation in this odd novel. .. Mirolla's fractured narrative, switching among the first- and third-person perspectives of multiple Faustos, parallels the division between mind and body, between technology and nature, and between what we can do and what we should do."[44], The Giulio Metaphysics III - "The Italian-born Canadian writer Mirolla (The Ballad of Martin B) interjects and argues with his protagonist, some sections unfold in film or dramatic form, and the story moves in a decidedly surrealistic direction, but the writing is always wry and artful. Though neither easy to follow nor totally coherent, this is an exuberant and often beautiful book."[45], Torp - "Love, death, mystery, and curiosity swirl together in this genre-defying novel from Mirolla (The House on 14th Avenue). .. Mirolla leads readers into questions about what makes someone evil, the nature of right and wrong, and how people can be influenced by others. A late shift in narrative style, integrating Guilio's journal, is jarring, but Mirolla's vivid writing and the psychological intrigue will pull readers through to the last page."[46], Berlin - "When ex-stationary engineer Giulio Chiavetta disappears from a Montreal psychiatric clinic, his doctor, Wilhelm Ryle, looks into Chiavetta’s psyche for clues in this offbeat novel from Mirolla (The Boarder ). .. Fans of the bizarre films of David Lynch are the most likely to enjoy this curious book."[47];

Kirkus Reviews of Lessons in Relationship Dyads - "Duos of all kinds knock up against one another in this collection from Mirolla (The Giulo Metaphysics III, 2013, etc.). .. There is much to admire about a good formal constraint, a collection with a tight unifying theme, thematic subheadings, use of artifacts, and metafictional flourishes. But while this collection includes all of these elements and more, the result is less high-wire artistry and more fragmented mess. Occasionally there is a lovely detail, a paragraph of character and action, or an interesting thought, but then everything—including the relationships that should be the beating hearts of the stories—is washed away by the author’s voice. ... A muddled, undercooked collection that does not live up to the promise of its conceit."[48];

Maple Tree Literary Supplement of Berlin - "Michael Mirolla has been around the infrastructure surrounding writing for sometime now. .. is an odd, unsettling and nightmarish book. .. Mirolla achieves the transitions between the real and surreal with ease. It is a mark of his strength as a writer that he makes it appear effortless. Furthermore the novel reads like an ideological primer on postmodern fiction .. Both the reader and Chiavetta are left hanging in more ways than one. The mad, in short, is leading the mad without a clear past or a definable future; there is only the confused present."[49];

Quill & Quire of Berlin - "Berlin, from Toronto writer Michael Mirolla, is an ambitious novel concerned with, among many other things, the nature of identity, the weight of history, the significance of catastrophe, and the legacies of both fascism and communism. It is, unfortunately, more ambitious than successful. .. More problematic than the language, however, is the sense that the novel is trying too hard,"[50], Torp - "In his new novel, writer and publisher Michael Mirolla uses the 1970 FLQ crisis as the backdrop for a story about two young people caught up in a relationship they cannot control – one of equal parts passion, mystery, violence, and enderness. .. Mirolla has a keen eye for the dynamics of his characters, .. The book suffers, however, from pacing problems as Mirolla struggles to figure out which scenes to linger on. .. Having said that, Mirolla writes with great passion, and his novel will appeal to anyone possessed of a nostalgic interest in this tumultuous period in Canada’s history."[51];

Event Poetry and Prose of The House on 14th Avenue - "Through provisional portraits, these collections by Michael Crummey, Michael Mirolla and Stephanie McKenzie focus on journey and ekphrasis in different ways. ..Consider me beyond surprised — closer to brain numbed. If the intention (as with the annoying frequent use of ellipses) is for the reader to slow down to reconsider, it is not without its negative consequences. However, the number of adjectives, or perhaps my distaste for them, seems to diminish as the book continues. .. Like Crummey, Mirolla is excellent with lists and clever elisions, such as ‘grim (f )utility.’ In the poems about his dead father, I was reminded of Sharon Olds’s The Father and her earlier works,"[52];

SF Site of New Wave of Speculative Fiction: The What If Factor which contains Inside/Out - "In New Wave of Speculative Fiction, some of the stories are like fine art. Michael Mirolla's "Inside/Out" and Sean Wright's "The Numberist" come to mind. To me, they were like paintings you have to stare at for awhile to start to grasp their depth."[53] Coolabahapple (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, based on Coolabahapple's finding above; do add accordingly to the article. Kierzek (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep concur with User:Coolabahapple, enough RS attention has been paid to to clear the WP:AUTHOR bar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Pride and the Pimptones[edit]

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

I do not believe that this band meets the criteria for WP:NBAND. They have had a couple of spot plays on radio stations and played some support slots, but nothing extensive to give them prominence beyond the local level. There's a lack of reliable sources, with the vast majority of sourcing to their record label and websites like Amazon and Bandcamp. What I can find from even acceptable sources is mostly the odd article in the local press, but nothing to establish notability. The whole article reads like a bit of a press release too so I wouldn't be surprised if the band or label created it in its entirety. KaisaL (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:20, 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 17:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 16:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:00, 31 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) 16:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don Branker[edit]

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

While removing unsourced promotional content from the page, I realized the subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable source. Meatsgains (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable impressario.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:42, 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 17:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sources do not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG by a wide margin. The best source I found was this and it doesn't seem reliable. The articles in local business journals do not count. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anjani Singh[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Already deleted once as a PROD, so proposing for deletion here. — Diannaa (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:36, 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 17:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing convincing for his own substantial notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. According to this, the subject has only acted in 1 movie, so this is a clear delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sourcing does not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chateau Elan[edit]

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

Chateau Elan does not establish notability and does not pass WP:GNG. Only notable for the viral video of "Grape Lady". ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 21:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 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 17:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hmm. I'm a bit torn on this one. There is some coverage, [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], and while the newspapers are reputable, they are all local enough that I don't feel they prove notability uncontroversially. Yvarta (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. Delete. Spam. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this is actually amounting to convincing and substantial substance. SwisterTwister talk 17:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PhaseBio Pharmaceuticals[edit]

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

I would've frankly PROded too, three-fourths of my searches simply found PR and other related sources, nothing at all actually convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 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 17:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence that it is yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too soon. WP:CORPDEPTH is not satisfied here. Most news are press releases and limited to coverage of fund raising. There little in the way of reliable secondary sources I could find. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Expanded references since initial nomination and general consensus here seems to be keep. (non-admin closure) Dane2007 (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Eazi[edit]

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

Nigerian/Ghanaian musician. Google search for his name mostly returns social media, or copies of the announcement by WizKid that he has signed up with his label Starboy Worldwide (which is the only third-party reference the article cites). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the author has added more references, and made an explanation on the article talk page. I am not sure if this is enough, but I am thinking of withdrawing the deletion nomination. (What do you think?) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not familiar with sites from Nigeria and Ghana, but Pulse Nigeria seems to be a reliable news source, and it has nearly 1.5 million fans on Facebook [60]. They published a short article precisely about the video interview that is mentioned on the talk page (which is embedded in the article): [61]. It's a high-quality interview in terms of production, and it also contains snippets of two of his music videos, which look very professional, in my opinion. I would say the interview video is very significant coverage in a source that looks reliable to me, especially since the Pulse Nigeria article is about the video. But that alone is not enough coverage. 360Nobs.com appears to be another big entertainment news source in Nigeria, and this article [62] is interesting. Apparently Jeed Rogers is big in Nigeria, even though he doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. The article talks about a song in which Mr Eazi is a featured guest (you can watch the video - high quality), and it reads, "Mr Eazi has worked with some of the biggest names in the Ghana music industry, and has been receiving resultant buzz since he got signed to the Star-boy Worldwide. These two are just sensational together on this masterpiece." Another article from 360Nobs.com portrays Mr Eazi as a prominent artist [63]. The video embedded in that article has received nearly half a million views in less than a month, on Mr Eazi's channel. That's impressive. GhanaWeb also seems reliable (all of these sources have been used a lot for Wikipedia articles), and the subject is briefly mentioned here [64]. He hasn't released an EP yet but he seems to be notable anyway already. More from GhanaWeb [65]. At least it has a bit more coverage than some other sources, but not great. Lots of useful information this time, again in Pulse Nigeria [66]. To me that's a key source for the Wikipedia article. Among other things, notice that it says "Pipi Dance" went on to be played on radio massively in Ghana. So perhaps he meets criterion 11 of WP:MUSICBIO. And "If you are conversant with the music scene in Ghana, then the name Mr. Eazi shouldn't be new." So this guy seems to be a new sensation in Ghana! Anyway, keep the nomination open. If these sources (and others that other editors might find) are deemed reliable and the article is kept, they can be used to strengthen the article. Dontreader (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mr Eazi was featured on BBC Radio, although the show is no longer available [67]. In fact, he was on BBC Radio more than once [68]. This should be in the article to show more notability. Dontreader (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- These two links suggest no more than that the subject got some radio play. GNG requires coverage which discusses the subject; that is not happening on these two pages. Whether this is the kind of spin suggested in NBAND, #11, cannot possibly be determined from these links. Saying "they're notable cause they got played on Radio 1" is not in line with policy. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now you want to minimize the fact that he was featured on BBC Radio. What you wrote makes absolutely no sense. The second link says this: "Interview with Mr Eazi", and the duration of the episode was 3 hours. You really should cross out that first sentence, at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontreader (talk • contribs) 11:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This other article from GhanaWeb has very significant coverage. As I said earlier, this source seems reliable enough, and is used for other articles about African musicians [69]. The fact that he sang this song with Efya and made a video with her is notable. Dontreader (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's notable if it got discussed in reliable sources. Ghanaweb, while very useful for its readership, is not much of a reliable source; I've been reading and seeing it here for years. Their site (still) says nothing about editorial oversight, and the generally promotional and jubilant tone of its articles indicates a lack of editorial distance and objectivity. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You fail to take into consideration the many differences between a country like Ghana and a country like the United States. Editorial oversight is not nearly as good in Ghana. It can't be. The standards for obtaining journalism degrees are very different. The number of websites from Ghana is minimal compared to the US. And you are assuming that Ghana has an Anglo-Saxon culture. They are more jubilant over there. So what? You should respect their culture. Otherwise it would be impossible to have a fair amount of articles about subjects from (or based in) Ghana. There would be mass destruction if you banned GhanaWeb news sources from Wikipedia. And common sense dictates that GhanaWeb should have a Wikipedia article. After all, it's currently the #5 site in Ghana according to Alexa, ahead of Yahoo and Twitter [70]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontreader (talk • contribs) 11:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Saying that a site in Ghana can't have editorial oversight cause it's not in the US (and Ghana has "lower standards"?) is more than a little patronizing: you're suggesting the media in Ghana are like little children, not ready for primetime yet, and need to be helped. That's not respect: that's total racial and cultural insensitivity. Drmies (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okayafrica seems prestigious and has been used in articles about African people on Wikipedia. This announcement might be useful as an inline citation [71]. Notice that it says, "After his performance at the VGMA’s, the Nigerian singer revealed that he’s signed top Ghanaian stars R2bees, Efya and Mr Eazi to his Starboy Worldwide label." If Mr Eazi is a top star in Ghana then I guess he's notable enough. LOL It seems to me that it's just a matter of improving the article substantially with the information on this page. Dontreader (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being signed by Wizkid is a huge thing for his career; it does not yet make him notable via NBAND, which suggests two albums or more on a notable label. In fact, as much as I want to see it, I don't see anything yet in NBAND that he meets; there is no wealth or coverage, there are no certified big hits, there isn't even an album, let alone two, on a major or otherwise important label, etc. The GNG requires in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Ghanaweb is not a reliable sourse, and that OkayAfrica article, while it may well be acceptable, provides no coverage. It clearly suggests he's an artist who may well be on his way to stardom, and when he's a bit further on that way we can write up his article again. Delete. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Tell me something, Drmies. What's the official music chart in Ghana? Oh, it doesn't exist? So how do you expect the subject to have certified big hits? Look, please use some common sense. This guy sparked a major controversy because he was excluded from the Ghana Music Awards since he was born in Nigeria. Those are like the Grammy Awards in Ghana. There are many sources that covered that story, such as this one in News Ghana [72]. Do your own research. All you do is complain. Be sensitive to other cultures. Find more sources. When sources were pouring in during that other AfD you just pouted. Be useful. If you honestly can't find anything then you shouldn't be in AfDs, and much less so if you refuse to change your vote when others make an effort to find good sources that prove notability. Seek and you shall find. Thus says the Lord. Dontreader (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say he needed hits in Ghana. After all, the article itself said he was a complete international. But go on, make shitty comments to other people, and get all Xian on them--that's the way to win over your opponents. Remember last time when you apologized for "behaving in such an uncivil manner in that AfD discussion"? Drmies (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion it's notable that this month Mr Eazi will perform in England. I found this brief "events" article in the Leicester Mercury [73]. My final thoughts are that this singer is very much in the news currently, he seems to be a star in Ghana already (singing and making videos alongside famous artists), he's on the rise, and therefore the article should be given time for improvements and upcoming coverage, not deletion. Dontreader (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe If you did some more research about mr eazi and added some good sources maybe this wiki article wouldnt have been nominated for deletion before you create a wikipedia page make sure you have good sources and not two references and then yet your wondering why its getting deleted or been nominated for deletion wikipedia doesnt really care who he has worked with it has to be noteable i added an infoxbox and made some few changes if i had more infos about this mr eazi artist i would have probably changed everything and made it more better but i hardly see any info about him just articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debbyloves234 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Debbyloves234, for your help. I did not create this article but I hope to improve it substantially in several hours before the AfD is relisted or closed. Some people come to Wikipedia and the first thing they do is create an article, which is a big mistake. I was on Wikipedia for several years before I created my first article. Anyway, I ask the pertinent Administrator to please consider not deleting this article because I promise to make major improvements, if not tomorrow then within a week. At that point Mr Eazi will be an internationally performing singer because he has a concert scheduled for July 22 in London, and I think a bit later in Birmingham. If it's not a problem, please relist the AfD. I can make a decent article even without the website that Drmies believes (probably rightly so) is not reliable enough. No point in using sources from a website that an admin objects to, and as I said, events are quickly unfolding for this artist, which should cause more good sources to show up. Thanks. Dontreader (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I rewrote the lead section. I think it shows that the subject is notable. I even found a CNN source that quoted him briefly, and I included it. We also have the BBC Radio shows, including an interview, and other sources. It will take me some time to rewrite the rest of the article, but in the meantime, since coverage is not ideal, I want to remind everyone about WP:NOTE, which states that "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I think this is an exception because Ghana and Nigeria do not seem to have websites comparable to American or Western European websites, and there is no official Ghana music chart, or else there's proof that he would have charted since many people were upset that he was excluded from the Ghana Music Awards. If you look at the sources I used in the lead section, some of them are from this month and last month, and he will perform in the UK in a few days, so please give him more time. Dontreader (talk) 04:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I detected several dead links (I'm sure there are many more on other Ghanaian websites, which is not the subject's fault), I found more coverage. Please examine the list of references in the article. I think it all amounts to significant coverage (passes GNG). A decent article can be written, but I've spent too much time on this project today and tonight. I welcome others to help, or else I will improve it gradually. Dontreader (talk) 08:30, 17 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! 12:02, 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 15:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There's no doubt that Mr Eazi is a rising act. He has released three hit songs ("Skin Tight", "Anointing", & "Bankulize") and will soon become a superstar in Ghana and Nigeria. Having said that, he hasn't been discussed significantly in reliable sources. None of his musical releases have been discussed in reliable sources. I believe he is going to be notable within the next six months, should he continue putting out hit songs. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has also been mentioned on reliable source Nigerian Entertainment Today Information Nigeria The Nation Star Tribune and he was nominated for Best Collaboration at African Muzik Magazine Awards 2016.--Obari2Kay (talk) 08:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No quorum Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Storm (Malagasy band)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination as declined PROD. On the surface this is a non-notable band but am wary of systemic bias against articles with non-English and hard-to-find sources. Anyone with access to specialist music or Madagascar sources able to offer useful opinions here? -- Euryalus (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participation will be required to form a consensus. I appreciate this is a difficult topic due to the lack of sources available on Malagasy music, but no input at all will inevitably lead to a no consensus outcome. KaisaL (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 01:21, 10 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! 10:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:56, 31 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Solidarity Party[edit]

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

Article for a political party that only exists on its website. Entire article sourced to "party's" website and Facebook page. Search finds no RS referring to party. LavaBaron (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any secondary sources pertaining to this political party, failing WP:ORG. The only sources are either Facebook, which fails the policy on self-published sources, or a news post on a blog. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence in acceptable sources that this exists. Facebook accounts and its own website are not independent secondary sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to secondary sources on the web [74] [75], this party used to be named "Christian Democratic Party" (or "Christian Democratic Party USA"). Under that name, it has existed since 2011 or 2012. Counting the sources that refer to this party by its old name as well as those that use the new name, I find several references on the web: [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] (the last of these links comes from the ISI magazine, which is certainly a reputable source). There is also evidence that this party has actual activity on the human level, not just the virtual level [82]. I certainly agree that this article needs neutral and reliable sources, but the ASP itself appears to be real and sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 04:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep They have some kind of notability in Catholic and Orthodox publications, but not totally certain that's enough. And if not keep maybe a redirect to List of Christian democratic parties. (For possible recreation if they grow in notability or membership.)--T. Anthony (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep The party might be getting more attention due to dissatisfaction with the main candidates and its having an actual Presidential nominee as well as state chapters it seems. I'm calling this "Provisional keep" because if it gets no more attention by October I'd favor revisiting it. (I know "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" but this is somewhat time-sensitive not a "keep it forever in case" statement.)--T. Anthony (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I went through all of the sources Lawrence King linked and they're either blogs, passing mentions, or primary sources (i.e., the interview for Christian Democracy Magazine). I haven't found other more substantial sources and even piecing together information from the few sources that exist, there isn't enough independent coverage to write a neutral article. —PermStrump(talk) 04:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources presented by Lawrence King. Passes WP:GNG.--TM 10:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources listed by Lawrence King. -- Dhalsim2 16:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- badly sourced and poorly written stub on a fringe party that from all appearances has never been on a ballot or even in the news. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete unless~~ a merge target can be found. this Party flickered to life in 2011/2 as written up here: [83] on Patheos by Mark P. Shea. It is the only good source my searches located. Topic certainly fails the usual test for political parties, that is, winning elections. So it would have to pass WP:GNG the old fashioned way, i.e., lots of reliable, secondary sourcing. It doesn't. A student online journal published by Intercollegiate Studies Institute, the best of the remaining sources proffered by Lawrence King, and it is just not enough. And yet, this Party did exist. If there is an appropriate merger target, merging a single sentence about this Party into it might be the best solution. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an article like Christian democracy in the United States could be made as there might be enough people in US history who had some interest in it to make an article doable. And then we could mention this in that.--T. Anthony (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does Wikipedia already have an article that contains a list of minor parties in the USA, including parties that don't have their own articles and parties that no longer exist? List of political parties in the United States#Minor political parties seems to include only parties with articles about them, and therefore nothing descriptive is included. If there is an article that lists parties and gives a one or two sentence description of each, that would seem ideal. (I'm thinking analogously to the many articles on characters in fiction works (e.g., this, this, this.) While T. Anthony's idea of an article on "Christian democracy in the United States" has merits, minor parties exist within the context of the U.S. party system -- much as minor characters in Hamlet exist within the context of Hamlet. So if this were to be reduced to a brief blurb, the location of that blurb would make the most sense in an article on such parties. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 19:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As sources found are mostly not reliable AusLondonder (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A reference that has not been mentioned here yet, from the First Things journal, gives in depth coverage of the American Solidarity Party [84] Bmbaker88 (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; agreed with T Anthony. This party has grown quickly even since the beginning of this discussion, including the article in First Things mentioned by the previous commenter. Academic Challenger (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources provided by Lawrence King and in recognition of a seemingly growing interest. Ghym (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.206 (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others have said, there are no reliable, third-party sources establishing notability. If adequate notability can be established at a later date, the article can be recreated, but it is not there yet. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that Lawrence King's posted sources are not sufficient for GNG or ORG. I also agree they are passing mentions, or blogs that are not reliable sources, or connected to this topic, and therefore it lacks independent coverage. I think this article on Wikipedia is a case of WP:TOOSOON. This organization is headed in the right direction for the decade of the 2010s by establishing a social media presence and a presence on the web. Unfortunately it is not noteworthy at this time. My Ivote (see above) is still the same. Also, this party actually appears to be one of many third choice parties - [85] - but it has not distinguished itself in the press as yet. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the result of this debate may depend on how long it remains open. The most significant and reliable secondary source for the ASP just appeared today: the article in First Things cited by Bmbaker88 and Academic Challenger above. As T. Anthony reminds us, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but it's hard not to wonder if the fact that, for the first time in four decades the Republicans have failed to nominate a soi-disant social conservative might lead to increased interest in a social-conservative minor party. So on the one hand, if the ASP gets a bunch of coverage in the next couple weeks, it would seem silly to delete this page and then re-create it a few days later. On the other hand, I have searched for information about its presidential and vice-presidential nominees and have found nothing other than the First Things article, so as of this precise instant I would agree with Steve Quinn that the ASP doesn't have much better sources than other miniscule parties that don't have Wikipedia articles. My vote is still Keep, since I think this is a borderline case and I tend to be an inclusionist, but I think in a couple weeks we will have a better sense of whether this is the "new big thing" or not. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 05:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Maturen is a convert, or revert, to Catholicism who maybe the one once mentioned as part of Romney's efforts for Michigan[86]. He also looks to be the same, to my surprise, person as Mike Maturen the magician. Not sure what to make of that. Anyway this might be early indeed. The lack of enthusiasm for Trump among church-going Catholics, according to Pew I think, made me interested or aided interest.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my iVote to keep the new essay inFirst Things kicks it over the goal posts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plus it is getting a little fresh attention [87]. The most useful thing an editor who thinks this should be kept would be to update and source the article.

Note to closing editor As per WP:RAPID, I see an argument for keeping this as no consensus, and revisiting on, say, 9 November. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that all legitimate political parties of confirmed existence, as well as biographies of their top leaders and articles about their youth sections, should be automatically kept without regards to size or ideology. This is the sort of information that our readers have every right to expect in a comprehensive encyclopedia. I realize that going IAR about such things sometimes doesn't carry much weight with closers, but it should. Carrite (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per an article published in The Madera Tribune[88], a newspaper with no religious or political affiliation of any sort. -- 1:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C50F:780:4DBB:3155:1435:CCB0 (talk)
Delete -- The Madera Tribune is hardly a notable source. Secondary sources are still lacking to establish notability to meet GNG. Not yet sufficient for an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we need a greater number of reliable sources. However, secondary sources are not generally available for recent news. For example, the article Democratic Party (United States) asserts that Hillary Clinton is this party's 2016 nominee; the sources is the Huffington Post. The article 2016 Democratic National Convention is almost entirely sourced from newspapers, TV news sites, and online news sites -- because this convention is simply too recent to have appeared in any secondary sources. That's why the Encyclopedia Britannica has no article on the 2016 American election. However, for better or worse, Wikipedia does have articles about ongoing elections, and therefore these articles need to use primary sources -- which is permissible per WP:PRIMARY, as long as they are used properly. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 19:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sources Aleteia (Catholic news) covers it: [89], [90], [91], as does The American Conservative, albeit with the advice not to vote for it, [92], and Patheos continues to cover it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know enough about the US political system to know where to look, but surely a legitimate party must be registered somewhere, if not with the body that oversees elections, then at least as a legally registered entity of somekind? That would then be enough to justify an article. Derek Andrews (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be simpler if it worked that way! But here are the problems. (1) Each U.S. state has its own political party registration system. Many third-parties are registered in some states and not others (for example, the Conservative Party of New York State is registered in only one state, but nonetheless managed to elect a U.S. senator in 1970). (2) Some states distinguish between being registered for the ballot (which means that the party's nominees will be printed on each voter's ballot) and being registered as an official write-in option (which means that the nominees won't be printed on the ballot, but if voters write in the names, they will be officially counted). See for example, Green Party of the United States#Presidential ballot access: this party is on the ballot in South Carolina, is an official write-in in North Carolina, and isn't registered in Wyoming at all. Write-ins rarely win -- yet Strom Thurmond was elected to the U.S. Senate as a write-in in 1954. (3) In many states, the deadline to register a party is still in the future; thus the Green Party is trying to register for the Wyoming ballot in time for November's election. According to the Madera Tribune article, the ASP cannot collect enough signatures to be on the California ballot, but it expects to be able to register as an official write-in option. I've added info to the article clarifying these points. In one of the Aleteia sources, Maturen states, “As of right now, it looks as though we will actually be on the ballot in a handful of states, and write-ins in most of the rest.” However, that's a bold claim which I don't think should be in the article unless there is evidence that this goal is achievable. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 19:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. when in doubt , political parties are one of the topics I think we should be inclusive about, in any country. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dane2007 (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of villages in China[edit]

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

The list has nothing more but the names of random, ordinary villages and some very strange question marks following each name. China has 1,865,247 villages according to this as of 1998 (in Chinese, probably not a very reliable source but at least an estimate). There are currently only about 50 stated on the list, which is about 0.02% of what it should be covering, if it is a real encyclopedic list. Most of its internal-linked articles are stubs. In short, people are not going to learn much from it. WdS | Talk 15:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: My apologies. WdS | Talk 15:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I have copy edited the article to remove the unnecessary added "???" question marks that were previously in place. Made no sense. Otherwise, deletion of this article (that I created) comes across as a simplified solution compared to the notion of article expansion, unless the solution is to remove valid starting points for easily-expandable articles. If people feel that deletion of this content is best for the improvement of available geographic knowledge to the world, then delete it. Of course, this is not actually congruent with Wikipedia's overall goals of actually building an encyclopedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions; suggested red-link for a new delsort category. Geography is important.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

delete although in theory a plausible list topic in practice there is no way this list can ever accurately represent its topic. It’s not just that it is incomplete but could get there eventually. It is impossible. It would require too much editor time and simply not fit in a readable, editable article. I notice that the US mostly does them by state but even provinces could be too large a subdivision for China. Certainly not the whole country.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JohnBlackburne based on current format. If it is possible to create such articles for lists of villages in individual provinces (or smaller subdivisions) of China, then maybe this could be turned into a "list of lists" article instead. But trying to list hundreds of thousands, or perhaps more than a million, villages on this one page is not going to be helpful to users. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When articles become too long, they can be split into sub articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment I should add that having looked at the US articles the best way to do it would be to dump lists of villages for each county/prefecture level city/province into separate articles, whether or not each village its own article. The ones that are notable so they have their own article can be found via the category (or categories once it gets too big). The lists will then be comprehensive and so useful. Information can be added if it’s sourced and as editors find time, such as Chinese characters, population and coordinates. As articles are created for villages they can be linked, as slowly or quickly as they are created. The lists will encourage and facilitate this, making it clear which villages could do with articles.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would support splitting it into provinces as opposed to outright deleting based on the American examples. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously valid list topic. See wp:CLT about complementary roles of categories and lists. Of course this will naturally be split by province and smaller levels. Panic about this growing to have 1 million entries is amusing. --do ncr am 04:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid list topic and useful index for articles, as stated by a number of editors it can be seperated into provinces when it gets too big Atlantic306 (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doncram, Atlantic306 et al. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so we can have a List of villages article for every country? looking at the Category:Lists of villages by country, there are quite a lot more to be created:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- actually yes I'd say we could have a list of villages for every country, per WP:GEOLAND and WP:NOTPAPER. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - great, lets get started .... or maybe add it to the evergrowing pile of wikistuff to do. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GEOLAND sets forth very ambitious goals for Wikipedia when it comes to named populated places, and this list is in accordance with those goals. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not sure about WP:GEOLAND, but meets WP:LISTN thru WP:LISTPURP. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stomp Entertainment[edit]

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

advertising based on sources not conform WP:RS The Banner talk 14:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I frankly would've PRODEd, nothing at all minimally convincing. SwisterTwister talk 18:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Terzakis[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. completely unremarkable writing career. Orphan article as well which is another indicator of lack of notability LibStar (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my JSTOR search failed to find notability as an academic, other searches fail to find notability as a writer. Possibly merely WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero cites on GScholar fails WP:Prof. No indication of WP:GNG. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- non notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all close to substance. SwisterTwister talk 02:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Community-college faculty don't usually have a high-enough publication profile to pass WP:PROF, and our article doesn't provide any indication that she is an exception. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrew, no delete !votes exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump[edit]

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

Why do we need an article for something that may not happen at all? As soon as there are results of election and president elect is know, there is a reason for such article. Now, it does not look logical. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as User:E.M.Gregory eloquently stated in Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump, "presidential transitions are a topic of significant and growing notability" while User:ALPolitico said "article subject is noteworthy, especially since the 2010 law regarding transition plans and teams" and User:The C of E pertinently noted that "this was something that the government felt was important enough to invest a good deal of time and money into so it appears to me to meet the GNG with the RSes that cover it." LavaBaron (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:LavaBaron, didn't we have an AFD on this article a couple of months ago?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC) I guess I was thinking of this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the reasons laid out here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney. User:Arthistorian1977, would you be willing to look at the Romney AFD? and consider re-considering? because sometimes we don't need to dance the same set twice.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination, yet personally think it does not worth an article at this stage. Probably, till after the election. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, after actually thinking twice, it will be probably worth to have a 'Planned presidential transition after 2016 election' article, since a lot of information in both Trump and Clinton article is duplicate. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Presidential transitions are a matter of public importance and media scrutiny, and cost large amounts of taxpayers' money. I would be grateful if, on the same grounds, my article, Planned presidential transition of Hillary Clinton, which has been nominated for speedy deletion, were to be saved. Specto73 (talk) 13:59, 31 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tuotou[edit]

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

Obviously WP:NOTADICTIONARY Delete. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 12:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a definition of a Chinese word/abbreviation, with no sources provided. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTADICTIONARY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kifayatullah Dihlawi[edit]

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

This subject appears to not meet WP:BASIC. Source searches are providing no significant coverage, and the reliability of this source presented in the first AfD discussion (which was closed as no consensus) is potentially questionable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. English sources can be found using other spellings, like "Mufti Kifayatullah". Axiom292 (talk) 18:47, 31 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Austin shooting[edit]

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

This supposed 'mass shooting' is now being called two separate incidents by Austin Police,[93] neither of which on their own merit posting as they are too minor. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More media coverage for info (some including recent updates):

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/31/austin-shooting-multiple-victims-reported-in-texas
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/31/texas-shooting-multiple-victims-reported-from-active-shooter-in/
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/31/us/austin-shooting/index.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/austin-shooting-multiple-victims-reported-downtown-texas-capital-n620436
http://abcnews.go.com/US/active-shooter-leaves-multiple-victims-austin-texas-police/story?id=41025191
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/austin-shooting-active-shooter-dead-multiple-victims-texas-police-latest-live-a7164701.html
http://www.smh.com.au/world/multiple-victims-from-gunman-in-texas-shooting-20160731-gqht6p.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/austin-shooting-multiple-victims-reported-downtown-texas-capital-n620436
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/575780/news/world/multiple-victims-reported-from-separate-shootings-in-austin-texas-police
https://twitter.com/Austin_Police/status/759688419198930944
https://twitter.com/Austin_Police/status/759664504506462208
https://twitter.com/ATCEMS/status/759660102999764996
http://wgntv.com/2016/07/30/one-woman-dead-3-injured-in-austin-shooting-and-stabbing/
https://chicago.everyblock.com/locations/neighborhoods/austin/
http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/austin-schiesserei-101.html
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/austin-texas-schiesserei-polizei-meldet-mehrere-opfer-a-1105521.html
http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2016-07/usa-austin-texas-schiesserei
http://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/panorama/kriminalitaet/id_78559762/schuesse-in-austin-texas-eine-tote-mehrere-verletzte-kein-amoklauf.html
http://www.n24.de/n24/Nachrichten/Panorama/d/8911254/eine-tote-und-mehrere-opfer-in-der-innenstadt.html
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/kriminalitaet/schiessereien-in-texas-eine-tote-und-mehrere-verletzte-in-austin-14365390.html

Some links copied from 1 + 2, thanks to Yellow Dingo & Capitalistroadster. If one death and several injured don't meet the notability criteria, then perhaps the reportedly difficult situation to distinguish two different shootings in close proximity does. --S I 13:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just two common-or-garden firearms incidents that are (sadly) everyday occurrences in the USA. That they happened close together in time and location is just coincidence according to the latest reports. Even if this was one gunman (which it wasn't) who killed one and injured four in two shootings (it was actually just one shooting and one person who may or may not have intended to shoot someone else) it wouldn't necessarily make it notable. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article creator seems not to comprehend Wikipedia is not the news. Prevan (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Another day, another shooting. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Relatively minor incident; WP:NOTNEWS. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alas, by American standards, these are common occurrences and are not news. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per WP:NOTNEWS. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 19:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. ansh 666 20:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per WP:NOTNEWS. There are shootings everywhere in the United States that are covered by local stations. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: What about closing/deleting this per WP:SNOW? Suggested by the article-starter S I 21:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC) (btw, @Knowledgekid87: how many of the above media do you call "local stations"? ;)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS still applies whether the subject is covered internationally or locally. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 22:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For now. I believe it is better to make a decision when more information is released. Beejsterb (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering what information you are waiting for that will change the fact that this was two minor, unrelated incidents, and not a mass shooting as initially reported. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are over 10,000 homicides in the US every year, and I see nothing extraordinary in this one. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to "en.massshootingsintheUS.wikipedia.org". As per previous comment, this is nothing special in the US. Thousands of people are shot to death every year. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is sooooo not news. Parsley Man (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No indication that these unrelated events have any encyclopedic notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - in Chicago this would just be another Tuesday.--WaltCip (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This does not belong here, WP:NOTNEWS. Dane2007 (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delilah Jay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

From source searches, does not appear to meet WP:BASIC, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NPOL. Sources in the article are unreliable except for the Radio Times article, which does not mention the subject, and source searches are mostly providing tabloid, WP:BLP1E-style coverage about the subject wading into a fountain. The first AfD discussion back in late December 2015–early January 2016 was closed as no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete she made a bit of a splash [94] by wading into the Trevi Fountain, but after dismissing this as mere WP:SENSATION, there is nothing left. Searches turn up lots of online self-promotion, but nothing in the way or RS that support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As written, this literally just asserts that she exists, and fails to claim anything that would even be quantifiable in terms of whether it passed our inclusion criteria or not. It says, frex, that she's a singer-songwriter and a politician, but contains no content about her ever writing a song or undertaking any political activity to substantiate those career claims — and Come Dine with Me is not a show that can hand everybody who ever won it an automatic inclusion freebie, either, because every episode has its own individual winner. If she could be sourced over WP:GNG for her writing, or for the claimed music or politics, then things might be different — but nothing claimed or sourced here gives her passage of any notability criterion as things stand today, so even the Trevi Fountain coverage blip would just make her a WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and not notable as a Politician ,Musician or Author failing WP:NAUTHOR ,WP:POLITICIAN and WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable author; not enough sources to suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pranav Anam[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable person. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Non-notable person. We get way too many articles like these. Uncletomwood (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete -- yes, please. Promo article on a non notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It clearly passes gng,Detailed News articles from The Hindu , Yahoo , IIFL , Firstpost etc is found Iouytrewq (talk) 09:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the sources are simply essentially PR and none of it is actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 01:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, there's a smattering of advertorial style coverage -- nowhere near enough to meet WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fails WP:GNG. PR Uncletomwood (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CentralFestival Hatyai[edit]

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

Entire article written as a shopping advertisement. WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTADVERT. No significant coverage by secondary sources significant enough to pass WP:GEOFEAT Ajf773 (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is just another shopping mall. Nothing notable.--Rpclod (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I myself am happening to find this article as I search for advertorial articles....and this is exactly what it is; nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 31 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. Michig (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amentini Motors[edit]

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

Still nothing at all actually convincing and substantial despite DGG's PROD removed, it only lasted a limited amount of time, and contributing to the fact it was a local business, there's nothing at all actually suggestive for better. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Source searches are only providing passing mentions (e.g. [95]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non-notable dealership. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to try to inherit notability from franchisor, Tucker, but notability is not inherited.--Rpclod (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Northamerica1000. Can't find much out of this company. —MRD2014 T C 17:18, 31 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JFDI.Asia[edit]

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

Frankly I would've PRODed if it wasn't for the chances it may simply be removed; my own searches and examinations are entirely simply finding trivial coverage for financing and funding, none of it is actually substantial and convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fails WP:CORPDEPTH. On first glance it seem there are lots of references but on sifting through the stuffhere's what I found

Coverage in mainstream media is usually restricted to passing mentions or quotes from an employee/founder or an intern.
There is coverage in TechInAsia and DealStreetAsia, but these are not independent sources: both websites are Singapore based and tend to exclusively publish even minor press releases from local startups.
The depth of coverage is lacking here. I expect some good sources to actually focus on the company. That is clearly now available here.

Overall, delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- trivial coverage on a non-notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Dave[edit]

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

The videos may conceivably be notable, though I doubt it; the character is not. There do not seem to be any third party sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are drawing a blank in terms of any coverage in reliable sources. Does not meet WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the refernces in the article serve to verify that this character exists, but there isn't the sort of coverage in independent reliable sources that establish [[WP:Nnotability]. -- Whpq (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See "Wirraminna Environmental Education Centre" new entry (they link to each other). I have just started that page BTW. Should I merge the Dr Dave page into that page? Terngirl (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a non notable character. Strangely, the series is red linked in the infobox: What Have We Got Here? With Dr Dave, otherwise it would have been a target for a redirect. But I'm guessing the series is not notable either. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I've also been watching this article and examining it, and I'm simply not seeing anything of actual notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hot/Cold mixing combination[edit]

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

no evidence of notability: either this is a statement of a rather obvious general principle, or its an advertisement for a particular device. This is a case where the author can be asked to give an quote from the source. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:N. Source searches are only providing mentions, such as this and this. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- simply non notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: article userfied to User:Rainbow Archer/Beatrice Torelli JohnCD (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Torelli[edit]

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

Unnotable tennis player without any major tournament wins (let alone participation) or minor league wins. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Few sources were in English. There were many Italian sources which I couldn't translate properly with google translate. Here basketball players who play for clubs and become notable. Tennis players taking part in international tournaments, representing their country are not notable? Rainbow Archer (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment@Northamerica1000: and @TheGracefulSlick: I have moved it to my userspace User:Rainbow Archer/Beatrice Torelli. Different sports have different notability standards in Wikipedia. Tennis is very strict. Rainbow Archer (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy (already done) and allow editor to work on it. Delete redirect from main space, obviously. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @TheGracefulSlick: According to number 3 of WP:NTENNIS

Have competed in the main draw in one of the highest level professional tournaments:

Grand Slam tournaments (the Australian Open, the French Open, Wimbledon, or the US Open)

Men: ATP World Tour tournaments (the ATP World Tour Finals, ATP World Tour Masters 1000, ATP World Tour 500, or ATP World Tour 250) Women: WTA Tour tournaments (the WTA Premier, the WTA International, or the WTA Tour Championships)

http://www.itftennis.com/procircuit/players/player/profile.aspx?playerid=100174939

According to her pro-profile of ITF given above, she has played in the main draw of ATP/WTA Tour and ITF Pro Circuit main draw.

Single- Played 24, won-12, lost-12. Doubles-Played 8, won-3, lost-5.

As she satisfies the number 3 criteria of WP:NTENNIS, this article should be kept and moved to mainspace. As she is Italian, she gets covered in Italian sources or Italian sports magazines. Rainbow Archer (talk) 16:45, 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Molesevich[edit]

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

I still confirm my PROD which was removed by a new user with the basis that he should not be considered unacceptable for an article simply because he has not yet assumed office, but I also noted other explanations with my PROD, there's simply nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 03:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unelected candidate for office does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article under some other criterion before becoming a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for an article until he wins the election and thereby holds a notable office. But the professional career claims here are stacked entirely onto his company's own self-published content about itself, and the only other thing claimed is that he served as mayor of a small town which at just 5K is not large enough to hand its mayors notability under NPOL #2 — which means he has not been demonstrated as passing any other notability criterion. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins, but nothing claimed or sourced here gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the political career takes off, then it would be time to create an article. Otherwise this is promo material on a non notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected politicians are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Allow A candidate for national office under one of the two main parties is going to receive hundreds of thousands of votes by default, and is therefore noticeable enough to deserve a Wikipedia entry. The option is to limit people's ability to research and evaluate the only option to the incumbent candidate. An entry regarding a congressional candidate of the prominence of Molesevich is not only relevant to the public, but essential for democracy to function. Eric Boden (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not acceptable for the applicable notability because only office holders are acceptable; attention is not convincing for a keepable article because every politician campaigning for office may get attention, but certainly not all of them are going to actually assume that office. SwisterTwister talk 15:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our role here is not to help the voters decide who they should vote for by hosting campaign brochures. Our role begins and ends at covering the people who actually hold notable offices, not everybody who ever stood as a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and fails NPOL. If and when the subject gets elected, I have no problem having an article. But at this time, with sparse coverage in reliable sources, this is a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also have concerns about WP:PROMO here btw. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn as enough viable sourcing has been located to satisfy the base notability criteria for radio stations. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

City FM 96.0 FM (Bangladesh)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a claimed radio station. WP:NMEDIA grants notability to radio stations if they meet both of two specific criteria -- properly licensed by the appropriate broadcasting regulatory authority and originating at least a portion of its own programming schedule in its own studios -- but those conditions both have to be verifiable in reliable source coverage about the station. We have seen hoax articles created about radio stations that didn't exist at all, and some especially determined hoaxers have created their own self-published websites to support the "existence" of their hoax stations, so a radio station does not get an article just for claiming to exist: RS coverage must verify that it really exists. So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with Bangladeshi media access knows where to find the right verification, but it has to be deleted if it can't be sourced. Bearcat (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is at least a grain of truth in the article. According to the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission's latest annual report, City FM has been licensed by the Ministry of Information and the BTRC has assigned them spectrum (96.0 FM).[96] A major Bangaldeshi news agency briefly covered their "launch" in April 2013.[97] That's all the coverage I could find, and it's mighty thin support, even for a stub. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As thin as that may be, it's enough to cover off the base notability claim — thus enough to move this from the "delete" pile to the "keep and flag for refimprove" pile. A radio station certainly has to be sourced better than that before the article can be considered a good one, but as long as the base criteria are met it doesn't have to be sourced much better than that to be includable as a stub that's waiting for the necessary improvements. Thanks for that, consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear delete after relisting. I will protect this title also. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Ashwin Porwal[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Alan Hardest (talk) 07:18, 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} 07:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable medical doctor. The article is also way too overly promotional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that this page is way to promotional as he has really put up as what he has done . Has someone even read the references? I doubt. All the references are proving him right and look at his talk page . people are just saying that the vote is for keeping it on Wikipedia page as he is really deserved to . Valentina11112 (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC) — Valentina 11112 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

↑Kindly consider the discussion going on talk page of Dr Ashwin Porwal as well , i do not think that this article should be taken of as it is a biography of India's First proctology Doctor and who has done so much of good in social cause .And he has even arrived on various news channels . if the page was to be promotional then why wouldn't he add various other information like about he is the first Dr to do POP surgery in india . Treated more than 30000 piles patients , and various other information . you can read the references given in the article and those references can prove my words . But this all matter isn't given in article and this shows that it isn't a promotional activity @ talk:Johnpacklambert from Franklin10hhc (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC) — Franklin10hhc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The references given are enough to prove his worthiness and to be a part of Wikipedia content , I didn't find any promotional content in this page . I give a thumbs up to this article and it should be a part on wikiWiki111222333 (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC) — Wiki111222333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Non-notable. A CV and PR (which if you read the citations is obvious) does not constitute a reason for inclusion. Engleham (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alan Hardest (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT Delete per WP:NPOV. I have seen many AfDs about South Asian doctors, who tend to have "wow-check-out-how-good-this-guy-is-and-how-much-he-has-achieved" wikipages, but this one is really over the top. Note that Ashwin Porwal has been speedy deleted several times, up to the point that it has been salted. - HyperGaruda (talk) 05:23, 31 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Midnight Magic Carpet Ride Show[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a local radio show which airs only in a single media market. Local radio shows do not get a free WP:NMEDIA pass just because they exist -- if it could be sourced over WP:GNG, then it might be includable, but nothing here confers an entitlement to keep an unsourced article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing reliable can be found to support its notability. The radio station where it airs is also of questionable notability. Sixth o f March 04:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. clearly a hoax article. - Supergabbyshoe

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Between this article and the draft version, there seems to be enough to establish notability. Merging the versions and whatnot can be discussed on their respective talk pages. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 21:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuela Bellezza (singer)[edit]

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

Still nothing at all actually suggestive of independent notability with none of the listed sources being substantial and my searches finding nothing better. I nearly PROded but went with AfD in case it's removed. SwisterTwister talk 20:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Draft:Emanuela Bellezza exists, but it was created by a completely different user on 22 March. ~~It has not yet been submitted for review.~~ It has been submitted for review. Primefac (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As another note, the page has been moved (back?) to Emanuela Bellezza (and I've updated my earlier statement). Primefac (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. All albums are self released and she does not belong to a label. However, do NOT speedy delete, as CSD A7 is clearly not applicable. Safiel (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to Draft:Emanuela Bellezza to distinguish from the current draft. From there, someone can merge the two drafts into a single submission for review. The other draft has too many non-independent citations to be workable but I'd rather do that than delete something that someone will likely need to use in another draft. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As provided by the drafter for the other drafts, you can find significant coverage such as this page about her. As such, it's above an A7 but may or may not be enough for right now. Thus, I'm suggesting a middle ground. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to other draft: Draft:Emanuela_Bellezza is much more comprehensive, and maybe just popping this content in at the bottom would be the thing to do. I noticed that the draft was declined with the rather absurd reason "article already exists on wikipedia." Once there, that editor and whoever is working on this one can compare notes, do cleanup and see if they can get it ready for prime time. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:06, 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 01:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Between the sources in LA Weekly [98], and the Italian newspaper Sanremo News [99], I'm satisfied that there's enough reference material to support an article. And from two separate continents, at that. Both of these references are substantially about Bellezza and not just name drops or passing mentions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The creator of the competing draft article appeared in #wikipedia-en-help several times, hoping to get this live article deleted so that her "better draft" could take its place. There may be some conflict-of-interest issues here, and possible involvement with the artist herself. Regardless, the creators of both the live article and the competing draft article have fallen silent, so I opted to research the artist myself, and I did some serious pruning and verification. Scottyoak2 (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The articles at Living Out Loud, Caracol 1260, LA Weekly, and All Indie Magazine meet the requirement for multiple independent coverage. (I don't think the article in Sanremo News was authored by the publication. It appears to be a press release with editorial review.) However, none of the other criteria of WP:NMUSIC are clearly satisfied. There have been accolades, but I wouldn't consider them major awards. Scottyoak2 (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More information, references and more bibliography added to the article. July 23rd, 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emyskate1234 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 23 July 2016‎ (UTC) comment moved to bottom of discussion. Primefac (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I went ahead and found even more sources about the artist. In my opinion, now the criteria #1, #2, #9, #10, #11, #12 are satisfied for WP:NMUSIC. (I explain here why I think they are: #1 multiple articles from independent sources, #2 Song "Ella Se Va" placed in radio in Venezuela and in national charts of that country, #9 finalist for the John Lennon Songwriting Competition, #10 Univision, MTV and all other TV stations mentioned in article, #11 Same as above - radio and TV, #12 same as above). In my opinion, this article should not be deleted, because it meets many of the requirements. -- JohnC12 (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my view this page should be kept as it follow the guidelines and has good references. Page is orphan but it is not a big problems as most of the newly created pages are orphan.New baba (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's a lot written here, but unfortunately, much of it (on both sides) doesn't speak to wikipedia policy. Without nit-picking most of it, I will state that github usage statistics cary zero weight in these arguments. What we're looking for are reliable, third-party, independent, sources to establish notability according to our own (perhaps arcane) rules. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peewee ORM[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for notability since April 2015. Sources included in the article are all first party. While a Google search returns a significant amount of hits, I don't see the kind of articles outside the programming community that would establish notability for what seems to be a relatively obscure application. I will go with a weak delete unless somebody can find a couple of solid, third party, reliable sources outside of the immediate programming community that would establish notability for this application. Article just went into a week long semi-protect due to editing disputes, so looks like the perfect time to take this to AfD. Safiel (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maintainer of peewee orm. I cannot comment on whether a page is warranted or not for this tool. Here are some third party sources:

http://blog.livecoding.tv/2016/03/24/the-ten-10-best-python-productivity-tools-plugins-and-libraries/
http://www.techworld.com/picture-gallery/apps/10-python-tools-too-good-overlook-3580429/
http://www.infoworld.com/article/3008915/application-development/6-python-libraries-every-programmer-will-love.html

Regarding the edits, I've been being harassed by a rabid contributor out to shame me into obedience...ugh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.45.154.125 (talk) 04:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Regarding the edit dispute. IF this article survives AfD and IF the editing disputes continue after the page protection expires, the matter will likely have to be referred to the appropriate noticeboard. But for now the dispute is safely on hold with the page protection in place, so lets see if the article even survives. If it is deleted, the editing dispute will be moot. Safiel (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All three sources given mention the application only in passing, so even taken as a whole, they do not confer notability. Safiel (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note I asked for the article to be deleted during the last two days and would be happy to see it gone. It's caused me nothing but grief the last month or so. Regarding those "sources", yeah I wasn't suggesting they were proof positive of relevancy. But they are examples of third party sources calling out the project as being very (whatever adjective the article used). But at the end of the day, please just kill it with extreme prejudice. - Charles Leifer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.248.188.137 (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would argue against deletion. This is roughly the third most popular ORM for Python best I can tell. It has 2958 "stars" and 548 "forks" on GitHub, which indicate a quite high level of developer interaction. For comparison, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Language_Toolkit has 3579/1098 stars/forks, and has a similar level of detail in its wikipedia article, and all holy heck would be unleashed in the CS community if it that were deleted. NLTK does have more external articles, but I'd argue that's more because there just isn't that much to say about an ORM, as it's a very well understood concept. I know the project's creator is arguing for its deletion, but that seems motivated by his dislike for the criticism/edit war, not that he truly thinks it's not notable. (Full disclosure, I participated in that editing, though not the only one.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C1:C100:9F00:C1D:FE84:2530:49D4 (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
https://teamtreehouse.com/library/using-databases-in-python/meet-peewee/meet-peewee-our-orm
http://www.blog.pythonlibrary.org/2014/07/17/an-intro-to-peewee-another-python-orm/
http://jonathansoma.com/tutorials/webapps/intro-to-peewee/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C5:102:8EA7:8EA:305F:8704:D87E (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm new here but I don't think this article should be deleted. It's quite popular in the python community it seems. Expatriaticus (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability in Wikipedia is quite clearly and logically defined, and it often surprises me how the programming community can lose sight of these simple rules yet can be obsessively precise in their application of programming rules. This article does not demonstrate notability as required by Wikipedia. In the absence of notability the article fails to establish a justification for being included in Wikipedia. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sourcing does not establish notability for this subject. The material can possibly be found elsewhere. This is not enough to sustain an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Boca Raton Tribune[edit]

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

Non notable local newspaper. Appears to be wholly written by the publisher of the paper who both removed a PROD and the COI template. Refs only show that it exists . Fails WP:GNG which is surprising for a newspaper Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per our policy of IAR. I feel the same way about newspapers that I do about academic journals — they all should be automatically included since (a) it is something that a comprehensive encyclopedia should include; and (b) they are used as "reliable sources" (so-called) in Wikipedia, and we owe it to our readers to allow the investigation of the quality of this or that source being used to document our articles. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ignoring all rules and treating all newspapers and academic periodicals as inherently notable would give credibility to all the vanity academic publishers of non peer-reviewed "research" and would allow in every individual with access to a photocopier who produced a so-called Newspaper. Sorry, but this isn't a good place to ignore all rules Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:55, 25 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 Winner of two non-notable awards. One of those was for charity efforts rather than journalism. Fails GNG. The most significant coverage I found was two articles regarding alleged plagiarism. 1 2 Gab4gab (talk) 09:57, 25 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) 01:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a weekly shopper with an inflated reputation, and Gab4gab's finding of stories involving plagiarism by the publication aren't inspiring. Very little hard news outside of rip-and-read regurgitations of local law enforcement notices and a whole lot of fluff. Of course the "60,000 households" doesn't mean that all of them are reading a free paper, a common claim for shoppers to claim notability here, which I can't find. Nate • (chatter) 02:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- "weekly" and "free of charge" does not a notable newspaper make. Do not see sufficient notability here. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Sparkz[edit]

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

CSD was declined. No evidence I could find that the producer passes any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. As for WP:GNG, he most certainly fails. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link to magazine published is Here Another link to a release of project with a mainstream media outlet can be found here JohnMor92 —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence Forever Madness: The Randy Savage EP is notable? Your source attests its existence. Anyone can have an EP. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see a meaningful claim of notability, nor do I see any reliable and verifiable sources that would establish such a claim. Alansohn (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I clearly see reliable and verifiable recourses of working with professional musicians just like every other engineer on here. User:JohnMor92 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to present your clearly "reliable and verifiable recourses"? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A list of music industry credits can be found here And Forever Madness: The Randy Savage EP's editorial release via a major News/Entertainment outlet can be found here. User:JohnMor92 (talk) 19 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.106.35 (talk)

That link merely states that "a collaborative EP" was released. Do you have evidence the EP is notable? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though not as well recognized by the normal person, if you check the sources he is all over the hip hop industry with a lot of well known work.2601:81:8400:100:6233:4BFF:FE1B:9F57 (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I "check the sources he is all over the hip hop industry"? What sources? All over what? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have added some projects to the article talkpage so relevant editors are notified. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, JohnMor92, are you John Sparkz? its just that your user name is similar to his birthname - John Moriau, with his birthyear - 1992, tacked on, please look at WP:AUTO, and WP:USERNAME, thanks Coolabahapple (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 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 00:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability in the article's sources and brief online search. Aust331 (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable music engineer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would have PRODed instead. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of note and a clear conflict of interest from the only person arguing to keep. Can probably be snow closed, actually. KaisaL (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG, a gsearch has brought up nothing useable, in the article's external links there is an interview from Jenesis Magazine[100], but there needs to be more for notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motoroids[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Searches are simply finding trivial local mentions, nothing actually convincing of substance. Notifying Dennis Bratland and Bearian. SwisterTwister talk 00:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Not notable enough for Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note – Also notifying via ping other past AfD participants: Ironholds, Ritchie333 and Anupmehra. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing has changed since AfD #2 and #3; indeed, Dennis Bratland sums things up quite well in the latter. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motoroids (3rd nomination): "There are no independent, reliable sources that tell us anything about Motoroids, because the website has not been the subject of any coverage whatsoever. It has won no awards, and nobody has expressed any curiosity about this website, how it is run, who writes for it, or what makes it unique. The only independently published fact we have about Motoroids is its Alexa rank." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sourcing does not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Dane2007 (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Yard[edit]

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

PROD removed by Andrew Davidson in a typically unexplained, time-wasting move. This building is not notable. It's a location where the Toronto transit system keeps cars and buses--there is nothing encyclopedic about it. I found one secondary mention of the building: something there was built in 2009--that's the level of non-notability we're looking at. Delete: fails the GNG miserably. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is one of three very similar ones. See the other two, out of:

--do ncr am 22:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the largest facility of the Toronto Transit Commission and there are obviously better alternatives than deletion per our editing policy. Drmies seems to have been on a deletion spree and we notice that, for the similar cases before and after this, he used AfD rather than ProD. Perhaps he punched the wrong button on Twinkle as ProD seems quite inappropriate in this case because the article has existed for over 10 years and been edited by numerous editors, who all seem to have considered the topic to be reasonable. Notifying just the original IP account that started the page is quite inadequate as it would be quite improper for such a mature article about such a major facility to be silently removed without discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason assume PROD is not appropriate for such articles; I note that Andrew Davidson proposes not a single argument for keeping the article besides saying "it's the biggest they have", which is unproven and, in its own right, uninteresting. Instead we get a personal attack of some sort. Andrew: AfD doesn't go silently, nor does PROD--you're not the only person who looks at articles nominated for deletion. Drmies (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A merge might be called for; AfD has generally held that railway lines (infrastructure) are notable, along with stations. Yards haven't come up very often. An yard is arguably more important than an individual station (and larger) but less visible. Mackensen (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A transit yard does not get an automatic notability pass just because it exists; it must be the subject of reliable source coverage in media to earn a notability pass. But the only sourcing here is the TTC's own self-published website about itself, and the quality of RS coverage needed to salvage this just isn't out there. This can be mentioned in the appropriate places (e.g. Toronto Transit Commission), but nothing here satisfies the conditions needed to stand alone as an independent article topic in its own right. And just for the record, I live in Toronto and take the subway quite regularly — so this is not a case of me confusing notability or lack thereof with personal unfamiliarity with the topic. And consensus can change, as can the notability and sourcing rules that a topic has to meet, so the fact that the article has existed for ten years is not determinative — if the article isn't meeting, and can't be revised to meet, the notability and sourcing standards that pertain today, then the fact that this may have been considered acceptable by the horrifically loose standards of 2005 (which were tightened up over the past decade because they had to be) doesn't trump today's rules. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or Keep). It is legitimate material for larger article Toronto Transit Commission facilities, which has a short section about it. It's not too long that most of it could not be merged back to the larger article's section, leaving a redirect behind and hence leaving the page's edit history, which can be revived if more coverage turns up. However it is also okay that it is split out to a separate article, so that extra detail does not clog up the main article. There is not much to be gained by this AFD. --do ncr am 21:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. At best, it can be merged with Toronto Transit Commission facilities. The Banner talk 22:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major permanent transit infrastructure has always been considered notable, though relatively fe people have written on the behind-the-scenes parts of it. This is major enough, and there are sources. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources? Where? Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - prominent transport facilities can be notable. There are articles on more than twenty rail depots in London, for instance. Seems to be a major facility, although more citations would be nice. Perhaps a book on the history of the TTC system would be a good source. Blythwood (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, more citations would be nice. But there aren't more citations out there to add, because media coverage of this is nonexistent. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As DGG says, we have consistently, and appropriately, treated major transportation infrastructure as notable. Deletion of this encyclopedic content is not appropriate. Alternatively, a merge might be OK, adding some additional detail at Toronto Transit Commission facilities. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We treat major transportation infrastructure as notable if it's reliably sourced. We do not treat transportation infrastructure as notable if its owner's own self-published website about itself is the only source anybody can find. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The TTC's sources will be very reliable. We routinely have mundane infrastructure documented in this sort of way, e.g. Ontario Highway 27. Andrew D. (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources, for Wikipedia's purposes, are independent of the subject being covered. Primary sources can be used for some supplementary confirmation of facts after enough independent media coverage has been shown to get the topic over GNG, but primary sources cannot be an article's entire sourcing pool. Highway 27, frex, does cite other sources besides the MTO's own self-published content — it still needs more of that than it's got, but it already doesn't have zero of that the way this does. And no class of topic on Wikipedia, including transportation infrastructure, ever gets exempted from having to have some non-primary coverage in independent sources. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's quite normal for sources to have some relationship with the topic. This is natural because the source must necessarily have an interest in the topic to be covering it. So, for example, we have numerous article about professional sportsmen which are sourced to sources which are quite interested in and dependent upon these as their topic – see Cricinfo. Andrew D. (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources which have a direct affiliation with the topic are acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after fully independent sources have gotten the topic over WP:GNG. Directly affiliated primary sources cannot, however, carry a topic's basic eligibility to have an article. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or selectively merge to Toronto Transit Commission or elsewhere. Unremarkable, routine piece of transport infrastructure, there's thousands of those and this one has nothing interesting to say about it. Sources are peripheral or not independent. What's next, articles about individual railway wagons? Sandstein 22:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

routine is not an argument. Railroad stations are also a routine part of infrastructure, yet we have an article on each. Ditto for Nuclear power plants, and major dams. There are several orders of magnitude in importance between this an an ordinary railway wagon. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 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. Michig (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paneer makhani[edit]

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

Oboviously WP:NOTBOOKS. I propose transwiking it into Wikibooks KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 01:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Umm, this seems to be an Indian curry right? I looked at the photos online and (if what I saw is correct), this seems to be an Indian curry which I recently had at a restaurant. (They had termed it as "Paneer Butter Masala" though). --Lemongirl942 (talk)
Keep. Arguably a notable food; see the references in Google Books. Since WP:NOTBOOKS is a broken link, I don't know what the nominator's actual argument for deletion is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wonder if the link should have been to WP:NOTCOOKBOOK, as the article currently reads like a recipe, but there is coverage in reliable sources so I think this can be fixed. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be a popular food as per [101]. This is also known as "Paneer Butter Masala" (confirmed from various sources). I copyedited the article a bit and added some sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable food, meets WP:GNG. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:18, 31 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. Michig (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mithila Sharma[edit]

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

Failed WP:NACTOR and WP:NOTABILITY no better coverage anywhere in reliable sources except this (Published in 2004) and this (published in 2008). Thank You – GSS (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mithila Sharma is a prominient artist of Nepal. Most of Nepali people come under less cited articles because most of sources are offline and in Nepali Language. Search for मिथिला शर्मा you will get enough News and images. I will be trying to get some more links soon. Thanks -Krish Dulal (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Krish Dulal: There are so many Nepali actors who have received good coverage in reliable sources and I'm also not sure if she has worked as main cast or supporting cast. I searched as मिथिला शर्मा but again failed to find much independently maybe am not searching the way you do so it will be better if you cite more reliable souces to support WP:NOTABILITY. GSS (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Himalayan Times is a reliable source, hopefully more offline sources can be provided by Nepali editors Atlantic306 (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Yeah, the Himalayan Times is the only reliable source available for the actress but we can not say how long does Nepali editors will take to cite some more online or offline sources. GSS (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Considering that the Nepali industry is small and Google is not going to be a great source for this, the small amount of coverage is adequate to meet general GNG. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Though barely, there seems to be enough to meet WP:GNG. Aust331 (talk) 08:49, 31 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pukaar News[edit]

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

Local news agency that does not appear to meet our notability requirements. There is some routine local coverage, as you would expect, but not significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:20, 17 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! 12:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Granted, it's like some articles about journalists, it's hard to find sources about subject among the many by subject, but with significant coverage about Pukaar News in secondary sources found missing, it looks like they fail WP:GNG. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:05, 31 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) — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Bangladesh Premier League player auction[edit]

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

Delete. This is in direct breach of WP:IINFO and has multiple issues. If not to be deleted, then please to merge into 2015 Bangladesh Premier League. The same is applying to 2012 Bangladesh Premier League player auction and 2013 Bangladesh Premier League player auction which are both also in breach of WP:IINFO, again to be deleted or alternatively merging into respectively 2012 Bangladesh Premier League and 2013 Bangladesh Premier League. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 14:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 17 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! 12:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is seeming to me that this discussion ending in deletion is setting a precedent here. Very similar in using statistics only and in breaching WP:IINFO. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 10:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG, a quick search shows enough sources for a standalone article: [102], [103], [104], more out there... --Zayeem ^(talk) 00:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be a notable event in Bangladesh, covered in reliable sources per User:Zayeem. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 05:13, 31 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Munawar Ali Hussainy[edit]

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

Notability in doubt: He was named Poet of the Year for 2014 by the National Urdu Cultural Academy for his poem and received significant coverage from reliable sources for the same in mid-2015 but I fail to find anything up-to-date independently. Thank You – GSS (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete this schoolboy poet as WP:TOOSOON. I found only one source: 17-year-old Kashmiri poet wins Urdu Cultural Academy award, IANS English, New Delhi, 06 July 2015. It does not suffice.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not notable yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AVL Trees in C++[edit]

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

Large computer science original research; POV fork of AVL tree article - üser:Altenmann >t 15:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT —Ruud 11:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 31 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Perry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of the president and CEO of a non-profit agency, based entirely on primary sources. While this is a claim of notability that can get a person into Wikipedia if he can be sourced over WP:GNG for it, it's not one that gives him an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists -- but there's no evidence of any reliable source coverage about him, in media independent of his own PR machine, present here. Note that while this was kept in a deletion discussion in 2008, Wikipedia's rules about notability and sourcing have been tightened up considerably since then. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too much reliance on primary sources to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing close to minimally convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 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. Michig (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bet.e & Stef[edit]

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

Ccontent not suitable for an encyclopedia, only a band name and a few songs SRich (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article claims they had a gold record. If true, that passes WP:NBAND. Also, per WP:BEFORE you should've taken a look at The Guardian as well as this and this from Billboard. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article definitely needs some substance and referencing improvement, but having been shortlisted for the Juno Award for Breakthrough Group of the Year is a pass of WP:NMUSIC #8 and having had an album certified gold is a pass of NMUSIC #3 (and, in fact, they actually have two gold albums under their belt, as their first album also crossed the 50,000 sales line in 2014, but the article was never updated to reflect that) — and I've added some proper references to at least cover off the basic notability question, although certainly further expansion is still needed). Keep and flag for cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG, with gold records (ie. here is the gold certification for Day by Day(thanks Fr wikipedia) - [105]), article is now well sourced, thanks to Bearcat. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Foyez[edit]

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

Notability is not clear. Fails WP:GNG, WP:Writer. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 22:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 22:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 22:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She is covered in major news sources for Bangladesh about her illness and death. However, I suspect she didn't write books in English and it would be good to have someone familiar with the country and language to evaluate the subject of the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Commons She was mother of writers Humayun Ahmed, Muhammed Zafar Iqbal and cartoonist Ahsan Habib, that does not mean she is notable! And her only written book named Jibon Jemon (in English like Life like as), is just an autobiography which is not a bestselling book nor popular. Most of the news coverage about her death and nothing more than. Article was written simply as POI. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 20:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet guidelines of notability. Citations merely note she was the mother of personalities. Engleham (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 31 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 23:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tasya teles[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR criteria. She had a role in Skin Trade, but it does not appear to be a particularly substantial one; the others do not appear to be either 1) significant roles in themselves, or 2) roles in notable productions. As it stands, the article contains just two sentences sourced only to IMDB and two charts. This was already PROD'd with the rationale, "Failed to meet WP:ENT, also an unsourced BLP." GAB^gab 19:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – aside from The 100 (TV series), her most substantial role to date was probably in the TV movie Damaged (though you couldn't tell that from the IMDb cast list, which is alphabetical). But, bottom line: this actress does not yet cross the WP:NACTOR threshold. Further, the article contains zero inline sourcing, and its only source is IMDb. Also, after searching, I find zero mentions of her in Variety, THR, EW, Deadline, TVLine, The Globe & Mail, and the Vancouver Sun, so she's a clear WP:GNG fail as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the actor has not had enough major roles at this point to meet notability guidelines. Right now the article is also an unsourced BLP because IMDb does not count as a reliable source, so I don't understand why this was deprodded. Sro23 (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable actress. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all close to convincing and I would've frankly PRODed. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XX Persei[edit]

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

No claims to notability (see WP:NASTRO), no content beyond a quick copy of Simbad data, and no references other than a link to Simbad. Lithopsian (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 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 17:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 31 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. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mera Yaar Mila De[edit]

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

I've searched for reliable sources that would provide evidence of notability, including a search using the Urdu name given on the page. The programme started airing in February and there is no press coverage of anything other than a couple of reviews of the first episode, and they don't seem to be particularly reliable sources. The article was proposed for deletion and endorsed but the creator of the article removed the PROD. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:37, 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 17:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as nationally broadcast, please add those reviews to the article as finding any sources on Pakistan tv series is very difficult, offlline sources would be very helpful Atlantic306 (talk) 07:08, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Rajkumar[edit]

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

Atfer I tagged it for A7 and now at AFD. Possbile non-notable person. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 13:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:39, 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 17:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - assuming the Idol-like claims can be sourced, he might be notable. The Tamil film industry is pretty big. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 31 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 populated places in Kosovo. (non-admin closure) Dane2007 (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of populated places in the municipality of Dragash, Kosovo[edit]

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

No educational use. Dupe-scope of List of populated places in Kosovo. Coordinates could be merged into the latter, though. Zoupan

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - duplicates another list and a category. This is a waste of good bytes. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of populated places in Kosovo. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to List of populated places in Kosovo. WP:NOTIINFO. 10:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Redirect as per above. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:56, 31 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.

[1] ttp://www.al.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2014/10/bus_657.html

[2] ttp://banshee.wikia.com/wiki/Hondo

[3] ttp://site.afterbuzztv.com/shows/tyson-sullivan-interview-afterbuzz-tvs-spotlight-on/

[4] ttps://twitter.com/TysonSullivan

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]