Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 June	15 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArtFund

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

Prod was removed. So to AfD we go. Original delete reason provided by @Huon:. Reposted as I fully agree with it.

Effectively a duplicate of Alturaash Art; no indication of notability. All three external links and references are copies of the same newswire; apparently no detailed media coverage exists beyond that one article. That's not enough to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Majora (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article has not been improved since I proposed it for deletion, and I stand by the PROD comment. Huon (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. Maproom (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Huon and WP:GNG.ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've PRODed as there's simply nothing convincing here at all, by far nothing to suggest this would have the solidity especially with it only existing for 5 years. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search didn't turn up any coverage of "Alturaash Art Fund" in the media, aside from the July 2014 press release. This seems to be a loans service offered by the Alturaash Art company which fails to be notable when judged against WP:PRODUCT. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not support notability. Also, this is not the only place that loans to artists based on their work. Annie Liebovitz quite famously sold her copyrights for financing, as did David Bowie.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 – no policy or guideline is cited in the nomination. "Unimportant" is not an acceptable deletion rationale, and the article has 10+ independent reliable sources providing in depth coverage, clearly meeting WP:GNG and verifiability requirements. Steven Walling • talk 02:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsonwave

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

Unimportant/unverifiable topic. Hookorcrook (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I've screwed up the formatting. If someone would help fix it, that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hookorcrook (talk • contribs) 23:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep and request close. The topic might be "unimportant" in some people's eyes, but that doesn't mean it's automatically not notable, and obviously the topic has been covered in reliable sources, including this pitchfork article that I have yet to read or cite. Definitly a disruptive nomination. editorEهեইдအ😎 01:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Majid M. Al Gethami Al Otaibi

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

Non-notable academic. Assistant professor with no significant publications (highest citation count for any article is 14) . Deans of a department of faculty within a university are not presumed to be notable, though they often are in the most famous universities--his universityis not one of those few. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as I echo the nomination, nothing at all for any applicable notability and nothing else otherwise convincing of any basic notability. This was not accepted at AfC and yet the user moved it themselves.... SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A promotional composition, with no reliable sources identified. Notability of this individual has not been established. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TOOSOON; doctorate issued in 2011, with no major awards yet. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:A1, WP:A7 — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UZO Soccer Cup

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

Reason KKM 22:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Debate not yet sorted

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted by MusikAnimal, CSD A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UZO Soccer League

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

Reason debate not yet sorted

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Trevena

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

Previously deleted at AfD in 2014, but the present article is different enough from the previous article to preclude deletion under CSD G4. Subject is a minor actor and television host, nothing to indicate he satisfies either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Safiel (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some-time host of segments of an internet reality show; occasional appearances on other shows, but minor characters or single episodes. May be teetering on the borderline of notability, but currently on the wrong side. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Subject is covered in reliable sources but not necessarily notable. Meatsgains (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of numerous ex-pat aspiring actors in Hollywood, therefore fail WP:NACTOR. E! Online source does not explain how he is notable, all it says is he was engaged with some former child TV star and how their engagement lasted a year, therefore WP:NOTINHERITED, also attending and hosting showbiz parties isn't going to make this subject notable. Donnie Park (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to explain a delete vote without going out of your way to attack/belittle the subject, Donnie Park. (small time hanger-on ex-pat aspiring actors who never make it as big doesn't pass WP:NPA) --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 09:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 09:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NACTOR. Pretty much per above delete !votes. Best case WP:TOOSOON worst case COI/PROMO. Jbh ^Talk 13:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as looking at his list of works says it all, no signs of any actual independent notability here at all. Notifying 1st AfDers Johnpacklambert and Whpq. SwisterTwister talk 17:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see nothing in the way of coverage that would put this across the bar of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-eh, looks like a notable-enough actor, but needs a COI notice since article was created/and or heavily edited by a paid-editor imo.TeeVeeed (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not much seems to have changed from the previous AfD, no new notability since 2014. Am I missing anything? Coderzombie (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps only the tenacity and indefatigable spirit of the paid publicist who recreated the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the closer sees they two articles are significantly similar and there are COI/PAID/PROMO issues then the title should be WP:SALTed so we do not end up wasting volunteer time here again in a few months. WP:AFC is not that great a burden if the subject becomes notable. Jbh ^Talk 23:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Redirect (NAC) Tom29739 ^[talk] 21:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuki Funatsu

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

He's mainly known for a long-running series Addicted to Curry, but he has a second series called Youkai Shojou Monsuga that has charted on Oricon. But still tagged for notability. So is he notable or not? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Addicted to Curry as lacking notability outside of his most popular manga. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Addicted to Curry, the author would be a likely search term for the series. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as I would've basically suggested deletion also but Redirecting may suffice for now (let's simply hope this is not restarted exactly the same however), there's nothing at all to suggest any actual independent notability and even though the nomination statement lists his other work, it seems clear enough that he's best known and longest worked for the main work, Addicted to Curry thus not currently independently notable. Enough consensus here, SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murasaki Wakaba

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

What? A one-star wonder in anime and manga? And Akito Sohma is not even a main character in Fruits Basket; he's more of a main antagonist that appears in a handful of episodes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resirect to Akito Sohma. In this case a redirect is not going to hurt, if reception cant be found for Akito Sohma then the redirect would be eventually deleted along with it anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the need for a redirect because the likelihood of it being a search term to start with is so low. Redirecting to an article that needs it's own AFD doesn't make much sense.SephyTheThird (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead also as I would've considered a Redirect but there's simply nothing minimally convincing and thus is not best to keep the history archived, vulnerable to future troubles. Delete as there's nothing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete both.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Malachi

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

No notability asserted, no sourcing found. All I can find is gossip sites saying that he supposedly sang on some Michael Jackson songs, and nothing about his real career. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:MUSICBIO. Both this and the article for his album Critical were created by "Andreamalachi" which suggests a COI and promotion from a family member. No sources for the assertions of "phenomenal publicity" and worldwide radio play, or for having a "no. 1 radio single" (where?). Incidentally, I'm intrigued by the line "Since the release of his debut pop album [...] in 2003, Malachi has had a promising career" – is it possible to have a career that is still promising after 13 years? Richard3120 (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would've explored PROD as there's clearly nothing at all minimally convincing here, clearly no sources meeting the needed requirements and his career suggests nothing at all encouraging. SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ring toss

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

Very skimpy article. Gives rules for game and not much else. Propose merging with Carnival games. Dkendr (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The article definitely needs some work but I oppose deleting it. A merge with carnival games would be adequate as the subject is significantly notable. Meatsgains (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while it is a carnival game, it is a notable one, so the standalone article can stay, because the coverage in the stub (which is really what it is) meets GNG. Nothing wrong with the article that can't be fixed by regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't ever have been a standalone article simply because there isn't enough meat to go on the bones. Dkendr (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is currently skimpy, barely more than a stub. But that is something that can be fixed by normal editing. Merger is unnecessary and likely to reduce the chance of this article being expanded. The subject is notable so I don't understand why anyone would file an AFD. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject might be notable but there isn't enough there to justify a standalone article, and if you can point me to the "request for merge" section I'll be happy to refile it there. A similar game, Cover the Spot, was AFD'd into a merge into the Carnival games page, and that's the suggestion here. Dkendr (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup. If you want it to be expanded, expand it. Don't get rid of it. Smartyllama (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware of MERGE, yes? MERGE and delete, yes? Dkendr (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:GNG. It's not just a carnival game, but also a game for toddlers and children to assist in the development of motor skills and hand-eye coordination development. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Creative Resources for Infants and Toddlers
The Power of Playful Learning: The Green Edition
Handbook of Evidence-Based Treatment Manuals for Children and Adolescents
Great Games for Young Children
Game Play: Therapeutic Use of Childhood Games
Tag, Toss & Run: 40 Classic Lawn Games
Small Business and Entrepreneurship

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Collegiate Society of America

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

No working references. Google knows nothing about it. Rathfelder (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches in news and newspapers found nothing. One-line trivial mention in the nearly 1000 page Choosing the Right College all that I could find. General google searches mostly produced Wikipedia mirrors. AusLondonder (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I ran a news archive search and the ONLY thing that turned up was a lonely 2007 press-release put out by a non-for-profit called Helium.com.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I myself had speedy tagged this, by far nothing minimally convincing of both the needed notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lemar (supermarket)

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

Speedy deletion request under A7 declined by nom (myself), but agree with notability concerns. Does not appear to meet the general notability guideline or the specific notability guideline for companies. Online search revealed trivial and/or promotional coverage such as this trivial source and this advertorial source, but very minimal coverage of actual supermarket chain. Appable (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself had reviewed and tagged this as there were no signs of any apparent notability and nothing applicably convincing. SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. for (;;) (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Randykitty (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Save under condition - that condition is that I get a bit more time on improving the article so it doesn't meet deletion criteria. East Anglian Regional (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfDs are closed after 7 days, so that gives you a week to improve the article and show that the subject is notable. --Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@East Anglian Regional: Adding to Randy's note, AFD is not a vote, so if the article is improved significantly the comments above and my rationale for nomination may no longer apply, in which case the article will likely not be deleted. Appable (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice I have made some changes and I would like the page to be reviewed. You may have noticed that I identified the page being a stub, which I am just being honest about. So, please review and tell me if the page passes the notability test. East Anglian Regional (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. Improving it might help but I think it still wouldn't pass. NikolaiHo 18:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely my edits have improved the article and have made the page notable?! I said that 'Lemar Cineplexplex' is the largest cinema chain in Northern Cyprus and included a suitable link. I am sure if someone was trying to research about Northern Cyprus, they may find this page useful?! East Anglian Regional (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Save as I have made sure and tried my absolute best to improve this article, trying to use verifiable sources (as most are promotional on the World Wide Web), so please consider this now as a suitable article. East Anglian Regional (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Studypool

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

promotional article for non-notable company. The references are either press releases or mere notices of funding. Notices of funding are not reliable sources for notability because they are indiscriminate, like listings in birth records. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete the two TechCrunch articles don't seem like press releases, and there's a tiny paragraph about them in the Chicago Tribune, but that's not really "significant coverage from multiple reliable, secondary sources", so it looks like this doesn't quite make WP:CORP yet. OnionRing (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as my searches have found only a few links but nothing at all convincing which seems to be the summary here. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair McKee

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a television journalist, based entirely on primary sources with the exception of a single news article in which he's a contributing author rather than the subject. A journalist is not automatically entitled to have a poorly sourced Wikipedia article just because he exists -- reliable source coverage about him must be present to confer a WP:JOURNALIST pass, but nothing of that ilk has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Secondary source article from leading national newspaper 'The Guardian' added reviewing work of Alastair McKee Felixcallaway (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary source referred to above [1] Felixcallaway (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New secondary source added [2] Felixcallaway (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP of a television journalist, now including reliable secondary sources. This respected and popular BBC journalist should be entitled to have a Wikipedia article -- reliable source coverage about him is included thus conferring a WP:JOURNALIST pass, and has been shown here. Felixcallaway (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article is not about him; in fact, it fails to even contain a single solitary mention of his name at all. And the Gazette and Herald one does contain a mention of his name, but fails to contain anything more than a glancing namecheck of his existence. It's not enough to add sources in which his name appears, serving only to verify that he exists — he has to be the subject of the media coverage for it to count toward getting him into an encyclopedia, but he isn't the subject of either of those pieces. Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable television journalist. When people present articles that do not even mention the subject to show notability, it is actually a sign the person is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's information and sources but still nothing here actually convincing for solid independent notability, examining the article found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not one source supported his notability to warrant his own article: "He planted a TREE!", "He EMCEED a youth event!" Yawn. — Wylie pedia 17:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruination (Transformers)

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

Notability is not established, and there appears to be no room for improvement. TTN (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no evidence of real-world notability. I'm not opposed to a merge/redirect if an appropriate target can be idenfitied. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wreckers (Transformers) where it is discussed. I could find no in-depth independent sources needed for notability, but I don't know the Transformers literature well. If sufficient RS don't show up, Wreckers (Transformers) has a good bit on the autobot assembly and could be the target of a merge or redirect. I don't see much extra that needs merging (again, not a scholar here) so I would recommend simply redirecting. --Mark viking (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The name has been used by three distinct Transfomer characters across books, comics, and animation, so there's no obvious redirect option. It's unlikely the 7 people per day who visit this page would be unable to find a parent page for the particular story they're interested in. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see coverage in reliable sources. Google Books results are basically just novels and unrelated hits about electrical engineering. Web search reveals fan sites, open wikis, and many unrelated hits. There doesn't seem to be any real world notability for these characters. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect as this is still clearly questionable for its own article and there's nothing at all actually convincing this can be its own article. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dangwana

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

There are several Dangwanas in South Africa, but the map doesn't show one 30 km from Mt Frere. Kvng (talk · contribs) supplied coordinates for a Dangwana that is 138 km from Mt Frere. One could argue that 30 was a typo for 138, but that seems unlikely to me, especially since there are cities closer to the Dangwana of the coordinates that would have made better reference points. Without sources, it is impossible to verify or improve this article. ubiquity (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would be happy with a change of wording to "Dangwana is a rural village in South Africa located 36 km west of Port St Johns," which will match the provided coordinates and can be verified on a map, but I am convinced this is not the place originally intended. ubiquity (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made this change. Thanks for the suggestion. ~Kvng (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:IINFO. If Wiki had an article for every single village out there in the world, I could see this, but since it doesn't, delete. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Wiki does have an article for every single village out there in the world, or it can, per WP:GEOLAND. Sorry folks: if it exists as a distinct village -- i.e. not merely, say, a subdivision of a larger town -- it doesn't have to meet GNG, it is inherently notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally agree it doesn't have to be notable, but it has to be accurate and verifiable. The current article says 30km from Mt Frere but supplies coordinates 138km away. My point is not that is is not notable, but that it is not verifiable. ubiquity (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, and that's why I had phrased my response to SanAnMan the way I did. But you're right: until such time as we can verify that this village exists where it is claimed to exist, there is a valid case for deletion that basis. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also a bit confused as the Dutch article suggests that it is one of many districts in nl:Port St Johns? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - The village at the given coordinates may very well be considered part of Port St Johns, it's close enough. Without a source, it's hard to tell. ;-) ubiquity (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:GEOLAND. AfD is not the place to try and fix errors in articles. ~Kvng (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete as non-verifiable, WP:V trumps WP:GEOLAND. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. In fact Dangwana is a stream and a census place for the area around the stream, with clusters of huts here and there. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - PPS. I loved a Dangwana link I've found meanwhile: "Let Cosmetized allow you to look for the most appropriate Liposuction in Dangwana " ROTFLMAO. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Again, this is about verifiability, not notability. I am happy to see the tiniest scrap of earth be listed here if it can be shown that there's really something there. But WP:GEOLAND never says geographic features need not be verifiable. In fact, it mentions the requirement for verification in Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Sources. This policy also says:

Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low...
Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG.

Without a source, how can we even determine which is the case here?

Maps can be used for verification (though not for notability), and I've said earlier that if the article is to be about the village at the coordinates currently given in the article, then I'll accept that no further verification is required, because that village is on the map. But if the article is to be about a village 30 km from Mt Frere, then we need a source. ubiquity (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see the article has been changed so that it is now consistent with the village near Port St Johns. I'm happy to let it go at that, if others are. ubiquity (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made the change based on your suggestion above. Dangwana is on the map. Everybody happy now? ~Kvng (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GEOLAND requires WP:V above and beyond a map. There's too much ambiguity in the comments to just arbitrarily pick one and decide that that's the one that was intended without a source. MSJapan (talk) 08:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as villages are basically certainly notable but only if they can be established as actually existing and there seems to be questionability regarding this thus delete and restart when better. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sugarboy

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

article leans on sources that aren't close to what we recognize as RS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Stanleytux (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Page's current references may not be the strongest but the subject is covered in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so where are the reliable sources? can't find any from here. Also have in mind that there are several other Sugarboys out there that have received independent coverage in reliable sources so you don't go mixing them up. Stanleytux (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few I found after just a quick search: Nigeria Today, Music in Africa, and Pulse. Meatsgains (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still not sufficient enough for the article to stay. The three sources you cited aren't newspapers or websites owned by reputable print media. Stanleytux (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts blocked for sockpuppetry. Mike V • Talk 16:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets criterias 1 ^[1] , 5, 6 ^[2] ^[3] , 7, 10, 12. He is notable if he meets at least one of the following criteria". Since Sugarboy meets six criterias of WP:MUSICBIO, he is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. --Bello96 (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same references in the article, nothing new. User:Bello96, you really need to get acquainted with WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO before creating your next BLP articles to avoid them coming here. Please provide us with reliable sources. You can check out WP:RS for what a reliable source really is. Stanleytux (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes 2, 6, 7, 10, 12 ^[4] . He is notable and has also passed WP:MUSICBIO to. --Nonso Nde (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I also discovered that the subject also meet WP:GNG.--Nonso Nde (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonso Nde, these sources aren't any different from the ones Bello96 has presented, infact all you just did is try to re-order their comment in order to leave a Keep vote here. In case you don't know or haven't yet come across WP:AFDEQ, the discussion may seem like a voting process, but it actually doesn't operate like one. Stanleytux (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I noticed they are more that one artist with the same name "Sugarboy" so i think we should redirect the page to Sugarboy (musician) or Sugarboy (nigeria musician) probability with this we should be able to get more reliable source.--Yung miraboi mark (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He has not been discussed in reliable sources, and all of the references provided by Bello96 do not establish notability. I believe Bello96 and Nonse Nde are sockpuppets of Coal Press Nation. I am going to file a case at WP:SPI. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Versace1608 what make you thick am a sockpuppets of Nons0 Nde, is it because i said he should be allowed to edit Niniola Wikipedia article if am not mistaking, what type of sockpuppets fight for the right of another what i see in the vote posted by Nonso Nde is he is just trying to modify or probably contribute to what i have already voted... Why didn't you say am a sockpuppets of Meatsgains and i also when through Coal Press Nation talk page and i saw he is really a sockpuppets of it's self, it is so clear [[User:Coal

@Versace1608: Shall we strike the confirmed sock puppets' votes? Meatsgains (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Meatsgains: I'd say yes if we have the right to do that. Since the SPI case still needs administrative action, I'm not quite sure we can strike out the comments just yet. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 04:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: My mistake, I thought the SPI was closed and it was already confirmed they were socks. No strike through yet. Meatsgains (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources to establish notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining both the contents and information found nothing actually convincing for the applicable notability thus still entirely questionable. SwisterTwister talk 21:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Litton

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

Appears to fail WP:NFOOTY. Mdann52 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet either of the two WP:NFOOTBALL criteria -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't played in a fully pro match Spiderone 11:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's clear consensus, nothing at all for any applicable notability as my examinations showed. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 22:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ayisatu Owen International School

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

Non-notable primary/secondary school per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Only source is WP:PRIMARY. Drm310 (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to defend the page in saying that it is difficult to attach online references as Ghanean society is still largely a paper one, making it difficult to acces digital copies of rankings or a creditations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AyiOwenOfficial (talk • contribs) 14:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

@AyiOwenOfficial: Paper sources are acceptable, as long as they have been published by reliable third-party sources. However, this does not negate the fact that the overwhelming majority of primary and middle schools - anywhere - are not considered notable. --Drm310 (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a secondary school. Comment about print sources is relevant as well. AusLondonder (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not buying this nonsense about Ghana being a paper society. Ghana's Ministry of Education has a searchable on-line database of accredited schools (including private ones) here. Searching for the name of the school yields no results. Neither does searching for all private schools within the Brong-Ahafo Region (which is where the school is located). And perhaps we don't need to discuss the obvious conflict of interest regarding the creator of the page (who has been blocked). NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's not enough coverage in reliable sources here to base an article on or to demonstrate notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is still only a private international school, not convincing, thus delete. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 22:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Depoul Militari metro station

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

This looks like a joke to me. I could not find any sources stating that the Depot might become a station. Preciziei metro station is already located next to Petru Poni high school. Strainu (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This station does not exist, not even as "provisional" metro station (however that may work in an almost all-underground network), as the article claims, and there are no sources about any imminent plans for it to be built.- Andrei (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Nothing proves that it will exist within the next few years, therefore does not require an article. Class455fan1 (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is best mentioned as part of another article since there's nothing particularly better as its own article, nothing convincing of the needed independence. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Proposed merger target has also been deleted at AFD. Jenks24 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carrefour Militari metro station

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

per WP:CRYSTAL, this station is planned for 2030 [3] and the name is not used in any references. Strainu (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 2030 is a little too far in the future, and per WP:CRYSTAL seeing as no significant work has taken place or been referenced, this article should be deleted. Very likely that when it has begun major construction or is complete that an article should exist :) -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Class455fan1 (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, tentatively. Could this be properly merged with Depoul Militari metro station? That is a "provisional" metro station that was opened in 2014. Perhaps it is the temporary version of Depoul Militari?

Note some confusion in the templates of links between stations. At the Carrefour Militari article the "following" station is Preciziei metro station. At Preciziei, the "preceding" station is Depoul Militari metro station.

Also, are any of the series of stations individually notable? Perhaps they should just be covered in a list-article, and the current AFD should be closed "Merge" to that. Or they all should be Merged to one article about the metro line.

Of course a planned future station can be mentioned at a list-article or an overall article about the line. So far this AFD discussion does not reflect a lot of knowledge about the actual physical situation. --do ncr am 21:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead and only mention at the amount needed since it's not finished or built yet so there's certainly no notability to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 21:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 17:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny and Inder Bawra

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

Speedied this as G5 (it was created by User:Nishat Shamsi, a blocked sock of User:Mdhashim24), but User:Biwom unspeedied it, considering their own addition of a source and "removing some unsourced stuff" to be a substantial edit; all other edits are minor tweaks and flags. The article still fails WP:BASIC with only one secondary source and is almost entirely unsourced. McGeddon (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a good source in the article and clicking the blue links above (where it says Find sources) shows that other sources are available, so notability is established. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found enough coverage in several articles to satisfy WP:GNG. Gab4gab (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it takes looking beyond current state:

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

WP:INDAFD: Sunny and Inder Bawra Sunny and Inder Sunny Bawra Inder Bawra

Keep in looking beyond the ugly article, we have multiple sources speaking about this pair of composers and their works directly and in detail. Sorry nominator, but WP:BASIC is easily met through sources existing even if not used. And for their works, they meet WP:CREATIVE and WP:MUSICBIO. See WP:NEXIST. The article needs work, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 22:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virdi (Ramgarhia clan)

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

Not Notable. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 08:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very little in the way of sources; fails WP:GNG.Awesomewiki64 (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've looked at this over the years and never been able to find sources that discuss the clan. There was a time when I considered redirecting to Ramgarhia but I couldn't even verify that ... and in April someone has added content that is unsourced but would potentially mean it could be redirected to Tarkhan (Punjab). It is hopeless, really. Just another alleged family in India. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is a surname....but nothing actually containing how it can exactly be independently notable for its own article, there's nothing minimally better at all. SwisterTwister talk 21:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 22:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virdi (Khatri clan)

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

Not notable to an article. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 08:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with Virdi (Ramgarhia), which is also at AfD, I have tried for years on and off to source this and have got nowhere. Fails WP:GNG. - Sitush (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the honesty is that these are not always easily improvable because of the availability regarding information and sources, there seems to be nothing else particularly better thus Delete until a better article, if ever, available. SwisterTwister talk 21:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vatula

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

Notability issue. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 08:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2016(UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: would you mind elaborating a bit please and maybe sharing what steps of WP:BEFORE you've taken (and what the results have been)? Thanks. Uanfala (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: You can see that the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. As per the references there is only one reference that too an image file which is a screenshot of a book. It is not verifiable. It also fails WP:PSTS and WP:CORPDEPTH, which has guidelines for notability of a religion or a religious group.KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 13:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The screenshot of a book is a page from Monier-Williams's authoritative Sanskrit dictionary, digitised by a major university. But of course, although verifiable, this doesn't really help with notability. But neither does WP:CORPDEPTH: notability guidelines for organisations aren't relevant to an article that is about an ancient personage and the gotra descended from him. The three general notability guidelines you link to hinge on the existence of coverage in suitable sources. Have you looked for sources beyond the one listed in the article? Uanfala (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: I vote to Keep the article as I agree with your view that notability guidelines for organisations aren't relevant for an article about an ancient personage and the gotra descent. I added a few links which User:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga should have done before putting up this page for deletion. Getting trigger-happy with deletion without due diligence on the subject matter, the history and relevance is a waste of everyone's time. Do try to be mindful of the other editors efforts before randomly slapping a page with the deletion tag. Thanks.

Delete as fails WP:GNG and is a WP:DICDEF. I have removed one source (Rediff) because it is a mirror of Wikipedia. The others do not discuss it in depth and are basically definitions. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is still nothing minimally better for an actual Wikipedia article, nothing else convincing here at all. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 22:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wuxx

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

Previous discussion ended early as a speedy delete because the creator was a banned user. It was restored by User:Graeme Bartlett at User:Prisencolin's request. Not a notable person, and no outside information. JDDJS (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am expecting User:Prisencolin to improve the article to show that it has clear notability, but at this point he has only added a category. I would recommend that there is no speedy delete in this case, let the AFD run for the full period. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Not Notable. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 03:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is in fact sourced and informative but it's still questionable for an actual solid independently notable article. There's nothing particularly better thus Delete at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 21:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 22:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Gill

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

An article with a confusing history. I recently restored this article to what I felt was the last good version [4] which was for an actor (with a degree in art). Previous to my reversion it was an unsourced article on an artist [5] with no mention of acting. There does appear to be an artist [6] and there is an IMDB entry [7] but it is unclear whether this is one person or two. However it is clear that one or both are not notable. There are no sources other than the artist's own website and the IMDB entry. The IMDB entry shows a handful of minor roles. Google searches for the artist do not show any suitable sources (especially after removing hits to a comics artist Joel Christian Gill). The article appears to have been heavily edited by the artist himself, per his message at my talk User talk:Tassedethe#Christian Gill, Artist. Delete page as no reliable 3rd party sources to show notability, fails WP:ANYBIO Tassedethe (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable no matter if this is the actor, the artist or if they're both the same. Christian Gill the actor only had a few bit parts (and so doesn't meet WP:NACTOR), and I can't find any coverage at all of Christian Gill the artist (or his so-called "Illuminism" movement). Kolbasz (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to have had a career that would make him worthy of inclusion. --Michig (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as by far nothing minimally convincing for any applicable notability, especially given the current contents which are nowhere near convincing, and my searches have found nothing better.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs)
Delete non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R.J. Manuelian

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

Promotional biography of a non-notable lawyer. No independent sources; the only references are a link to the guy's law firm and a press release by the same. Google didn't turn up any significant coverage in independent sources either. Kolbasz (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly-sourced CV, no independent coverage found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michig (talk • contribs) 16:02, 14 June 2016‎
Speedy delete as G11. Blatantly and obviously promotional. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete: Sphilbrick deleted page Srabonti Narmin Ali (G 7 (TW)). (non-admin closure) Worldbruce (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Srabonti Narmin Ali

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

no other links Namster86 (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Srabonti Narmin Ali[reply]

Comment an hour and a half after starting an AFD for an article created by the AFD proposer, the editor started an identical copy with a slight spelling variant at Srabonti Narmeen Ali. This is not the way to rename an article, so @Namster86: please withdraw this AFD. If you want the unreferenced article moved from Srabonti Narmin Ali to Srabonti Narmeen Ali, then we can delete Srabonti Narmeen Ali and move it properly. But if you can't find any references for the article, then the article will be deleted anyway as a result of the expired proposed deletion. Thanks, OnionRing (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted A10 by GB fan. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 13:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shabeehanswar

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

Speedy (A1,G2) was declined by User:GB fan so I am AfDing it. This seems like a test page to me. A google search for the page title brings up nothing (apart from Wikipedia mirrors). The content on the page seems to be a mix of Katokhar and Hanswar as if someone had copied the templates and changed certain values. The title of the page is the same as the username of the page creator (User:Shabeehanswar). In particular, the creator has also done dubious edits like this where the article has replaced the founder's name. I cannot understand the context of the article (is it a place or a person?) and I maintain that this seems like a test page to me. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More proof that this is indeed a test page by an inexperienced user who is probably using multiple accounts now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 22:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Status Seeker

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

Non notable as per WP:NSONGS, empty page except infobox. Permafrost46 (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was actually in process of changing to a redirect tot the (probably non notable!) album, but on consideration the article should be retitled "Status Seeker (song)in any case. Whatever. NN song.TheLongTone (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I improved the article. m_bisi (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even with improvements, still does not meet criteria for WP:NSONGS. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NSONGS. I appreciate the creating editor is trying to build a complete discography of Dream Theater, but as a song that was never released as a single it doesn't really merit a separate article. I'm pretty certain the editor has copied the release data from Discogs, which would be a non-RS anyway, and I don't know where you could get enough reliable sources elsewhere to be able to create a separate article for this song. Richard3120 (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just an album track with no reason for an article beyond being released as a promo. I could live with a redirect to the album. --Michig (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect after deletion to When Dream and Day Unite as a valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kolade Shasi

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

Article fails WP:GNG. This is the only reliable source on the actor. I am very familiar with the Nigerian film industry and the name doesn't ring a bell. I am also particularly irritated that the article is an autobiography. We need to let new editors know that they can't create articles about themselves here. Darreg (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Darreg (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Darreg (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Stanleytux (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Darreg, my name is Ayodeji Oni, I am part of a team profiling and providing more knowledge on the new generation of Nigerian Actors and we do manage some, we are not too familiar with the way Wikipedia works in full and have been learning as we go (and certainly have much more to learn, but we created the Article on behalf of the named Actor although we created the account in his name, even the Username is his social media name as there was no attempt to be deceitful. haven said that, the named Actor is known in the industry and one of the fore-runners in the Casting industry, as an Actor/Model, he still presently has an advert running on CNN. Please, it is a bit disheartening to rubbish a young man's hardwork, simply because you do not know him. There are no lies, nor any wrong information on his page as we provided, he indeed was one of the three actors nominated for the Best Actor at the last in-short Film Festival. Thanks for the correction, but it will be too brash to delete this Article. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by HushnFresh (talk • contribs) 17:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @HushnFresh: please read and understand Wikipedia's 5 pillars. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. As Darreg previously stated, The Nation Mirror source is the only reliable source available on the web. Multiple sources are needed to establish notability per WP:GNG. According to this source, the actor was nominated for Best Actor at the 2015 In-Short International Film Festival. While this looks promising, the festival doesn't appear to be notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though the subject of the article is not known to me at all, I tried to find other sources to establish notability and save the article from deletion. Unfortunately, the lone source highlighted above by the AFD nominator is the only one available and it is insufficient. The subject fails the general notability criteria. Eruditescholar (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I examined the article but found no actual convincing signs for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 10:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N. N. Bheemaiah

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

Not notable, a non-commissioned officer awarded third highest gallantry award only once. Fails WP:SOLDIER KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 10:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER, certainly not on the basis of the sole third-level award, nor for any of the other criteria set forth there. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junior officer with a single third-level decoration. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable soldier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jake El Mir

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

Not notable. No actual interest except for his young age, and wikipedia is not a tabloid. Almost all the refsare self-written or totally trivial--most from YouTube. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ I'm leaning towards deletion per WP:BIO since, as the nominator points out, notability is only being claimed on the basis of his age - the apps he's produced don't seem particularly notable, nor do the awards won, apart from the WWDC scholarship. It's evidently an autobiography: he slips into first-person in this edit with Jake won the "Golden Award" for my app "NoSpeed". On the other hand, there is fairly substantial coverage (again, on the grounds of his age) from WP:RS including Al Jazeera, an 11 minute interview on OTV (Lebanon), and Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation. Even so, this is probably WP:TOOSOON, and possibly WP:BLP1E. OnionRing (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLP1E. OnionRing (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Page He is the youngest Arab app developer and the youngest one to have been awarded WWDC Scholarship he has been featured in the in flight magazine of the middle east airlines, on BBC Arabic and Sky News Arabia, France 24 Arabia ^[5]. I think that page should be kept it shows that the Arab world isn’t a place for terrorisme but a place of innovation — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeKh (talk • contribs) 14:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC) — GeorgeKh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

At best, this is still questionable for anything noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "EN: I'm Not Competing With Kiss Daniel - SugarBoy". Channels TV. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
^ "SUGARBOY DAZZLES ON STAGE AT KISS DANIEL'S NEW ERA ALBUM LAUNCH". KLICK Promotions. Retrieved 23 May 2016.
^ "Industry Nite With Modenine". tooXclusive. Retrieved 5 April 2013.
^ "Check out Sugar Boy freestyle on the Official Naija Top Ten". MTV Base. Retrieved 30 March 2016.
^ http://www.france24.com/ar/20151111-تكنولوجيا-لبنان-الطفل-جايك-المير-الهواتف-الذكية-تطبيقات-آبل-سرعة-سلامة-سيارات?ns_campaign=reseaux_sociaux&ns_source=FB&ns_mchannel=social&ns_linkname=editorial&aef_campaign_ref=partage_user&aef_campaign_date=2015-11-11

Delete as my searches have found nothing particularly better and the article is still certainly questionable at best with nothing minimally better. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is the youngest Arab app developer and the youngest one to have been awarded WWDC Scholarship he has been featured in the in flight magazine of the middle east airlines, on BBC Arabic and Sky News Arabia, France 24 Arabia ^[1]. I think that page should be kept it shows that the Arab world isn’t a place for terrorisme but a place of innovation. I am a french teacher in a Lebanese school. We had a project about Jake work. He came to our school and he had presentation. The students were very excited by what he made. I think you should keep the page because he is an example for young Arabic students and an inspiration from the arabic people to move more toward technology. He is the youngest Arab app developer and the youngest one to have been awarded WWDC scholarship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.76.178.161 (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC) — 185.76.178.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ http://www.france24.com/ar/20151111-تكنولوجيا-لبنان-الطفل-جايك-المير-الهواتف-الذكية-تطبيقات-آبل-سرعة-سلامة-سيارات?ns_campaign=reseaux_sociaux&ns_source=FB&ns_mchannel=social&ns_linkname=editorial&aef_campaign_ref=partage_user&aef_campaign_date=2015-11-11

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Connors

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

2nd nom. Subject was a state-level beauty pageant winner in 2010. The claim for GNG was apparently based solely on the proliferation of a single news item due to a throwaway comment made by Miguel Batista. Other than that, there's literally nothing about her before or since 2010. Therefore, it appears that, in hindsight, while she has BLP1E coverage for the "Batista incident", she doesn't have "significant, non-trivial coverage" per GNG, and does not meet WP:NMODEL, as it does not indicate that a state-level pageant winner is notable for that alone. MSJapan (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it is too much to make all state level beauty pageants even in just the top two pageants default notable, and she really has no other claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still nothing particularly better convincing about notability and whether this article can be noticeably better which is unlikely so. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Miss USA 2010 and more press coverage than usual for an ordinary contestant. The threshold may need to be held in general, but throwing out a pitch and the press coverage gets us there in combination with being a national contestant. GNG met by stacking. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Except that out of the top 10 finishers in the 2010 competition, 6 of them don't have articles, and the contestants that did not place (who are listed) also generally don't have articles. Therefore, being a contestant alone is clearly not enough (which is similar to what we say about meeting GNG via nominations for offices and participation in competitions - winning is generally the barometer. The subject also can't inherit notability from the competition. Also see WP:NTEMP: "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." She threw the pitch because she was Miss Iowa, which is also why she was in Miss USA. Coverage outside of that is nil. MSJapan (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete State level pageant winners should not be considered automatically notable. I have usually seen that contestants from sub-national level contests in other countries countries are deleted, unless they pass GNG. The subject has not received press coverage beyond the contest and subsequent pitch incident - not before nor after. This seems like a classic BLP1E and I see no value in keeping it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 17:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SolarMobil Manipal

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

The organisation SolarMobil has undergone changes and the page shows wrong content. It also puts content as an advertisement. Rashmi Sreekumar (talk) 07:51, 14 June 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 June 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is actually a reason to edit the page and fix it not a reason to delete the current page and start over as the OP stated in the last prod they added to the article, "The creator wishes to take the page down. His account is blocked and he is unable to do so. The reason for taking the page down is because the major changes need to be made so a new page will be made instead." -- GB fan 10:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominator does not list any WP:DEL-REASON and the incorrect information- as well as the advertisement-like content needs to be corrected instead of an article deleted. DeVerm (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per DeVerm. Class455fan1 (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Additional Turkish sources have been added. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 17:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahu Yağtu

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

What is given as her most important role is very minor, according to the article on the show Paramparça. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply still nothing for any actual independent notability, no convincing sources and there's nothing else convincing from the listed works. SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be notable in Turkey.--Ipigott (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment suject might be notable in Turkish sources. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how reliable any of them are, but there seem to be many sources on Turkish Websites (.tr) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be notable in Turkey. I complete article [8] Mario93 (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She does seem notable in Turkey. There are plenty of hits for her in the news in Turkish. I'll add WikiProject Turkey to the talk page so they get a notification. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Tesler

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

Fails the notability guidelines for biographies. The first source is an unreliable IMDb source, while the second one does not mention the name at all. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He had one recurring role in television that might have been enough to be a role mentioned for the qualification of an actor that requires two such roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I just had a look at the work he's done as a producer and director. He's been busy. Enough to make notability. Karl Twist (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 31 May 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) 05:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Regardless of the CURRENT state of referencing, his filmography and resume seem to meet our notability criteria. He's fairly accomplished, and is pretty prolific. Fieari (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Neutral I would say imdb isn't a reliable source (you can submit as many of your own shows as you like without verification) and the other cite has no mention of the subject. However, subject is also the founder of ITVFest, a notable festival, so that probably counts for something. But is that enough? I'm too new to make a good judgement on this one. In any case, I don't see much else online to indicate notability worthy of an article. It's a close call. LAroboGuy (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR for that notability and insubstantial references to support to the rest. — Wylie pedia 18:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as his longest career has been as a producer, there's nothing for any actual independent notability as an actor and his Gilmore Girls character was only episodes, so if that's his best known work, that's not saying a lot. SwisterTwister talk 00:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Next to no reliable sources. 79.66.94.252 (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Weasel

AfDs for this article:

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

New article created by SPA. Article is about a little-known comedian with a satire website that has once or twice created a WP:SENSATION as an individual gag is mentioned in the Daily Mail or on Buzzfeed. Notability tag has been repeatedly removed from page during period when I attempted to work with creator by advising him on what reliable sourcing is. Delete as WP:PROMO E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating both comedian and his website. The Valley Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a 2nd SPA removed tags for notability, sourcing [9].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree. I posted several references (with proper coding, sorry about that before). His allmusic.com page is listed, a credential for musicians, his verified artist profile on Spotify and his verified Facebook comedian page. All show notability. Any further instruction or advice is welcomed. I'm a newbie at Wikipedia editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeahimadethis (talk • contribs) 19:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Yeahimadethis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. is the article creator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems sufficiently well documented and notable comedian to me.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 31 May 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) 05:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'm sympathetic to the nominator... I'm finding that the majority of sources provided are not independant of the subject, or are routine coverage. That said, #7 on the billboard chart is nothing to sneer at, and may be a notability claim in and of itself. I'm also not as dismissive of a daily mail article... I understand WP:SENSATION, but on the other hand, individual sensations are what comedians in general tend to be noted for, and in my opinion, can add weight to corroborate (although not completely establish) notability. So the billboard chart, plus the daily mail... it's barely barely enough to nudge past my notability threshold. Neither source alone would do it for me, but the sum total of both looks ok. That said, it's right on the borderline, and I wouldn't object too hard if other wikipedians thought it wasn't enough. Fieari (talk) 07:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin P. McCree

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

Biography of a politician, notable only as a city councillor in a city outside the global city class and as a registrar of deeds. These are not offices that get a person over WP:NPOL, but the sourcing here -- entirely local, with the exception of a namecheck of his existence in a New York Times article about his father -- is not substantive enough or non-localized enough to claim WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Flint is not a "non-metropolitan" city as it is Metropolitan Statistical Area size rank 129. Register of deeds is a "sub-national" post (counties being a part of state government), part of the WP:NPOL standards, if not you have to spend months just listing for deletion various individual mayors of cities articles. The local paper (The Flint Journal) is also a (state) regional (metro) newspaper and the website (Mlive.com) that its articles are hosted on is a state wide news site. Also, I guess I assumed that additional sources would be found when I created the article. Spshu (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

City councillors get over WP:NPOL only in global cities with populations in the millions, on the order of New York City, Los Angeles or London — a city councillor in a city the size of Flint is not entitled to an article just because he exists, except in the vanishingly rare circumstance that he can be demonstrated as significantly more notable than the hundreds of thousands of other city councillors around the world in cities the size of Flint. And counties are not part of state government — they're a form of local government below the state level. It doesn't matter if a city is the 129th largest MSA in its country — the criterion for includability of a city councillor is "global city class, or hyper-WP:GNGable as vastly more notable than all the others", not "every city councillor in existence gets an inclusion freebie on purely local coverage alone". NPOL #1 is referring to state governors and state legislators, not to officeholders at the county level. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL does not say that and that is not what you said. You open the Metropolitan door and Flint qualifies. On top of that, he was the president of the city council. Spshu (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You also have to read WP:POLOUTCOMES, as well as being familiar with how the documents are actually applied in actual AFD discussions. It's an established consensus that global cities are the only places that get to claim automatic "because they exist" notability for a city councillor, and that for any city below that range a city councillor gets a Wikipedia article only if he can be properly and extralocally sourced as having attained wider significance for something more than just the mere fact of having been a city councillor. And being president of the city council doesn't satisfy that, either — a city council president gets no special status in the notability sweepstakes, above and beyond any of his other colleagues on the council, unless he can be shown to satisfy the same "wider significance beyond the purely local" criterion that the rest of them have to meet. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Bearcat has [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Melvin_P._McCree&diff=prev&oldid=725332875 refactored by redacting] his original AFD nomination, which makes it look like I misquoted him ( a volation of WP:TPNO). I correct the incorrect redaction to match WP:REDACT's instructions per WP:TPO as a proper redaction doesn't change the new meaning, but instead Bearcat reversed the correction. He removed the term "non-metropolitan" for the record. Spshu (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a person is allowed to edit their own comments if it becomes clear that the intended meaning was being misconstrued. And a person is not allowed to edit or redact other people's comments, except in very limited administrative circumstances (such as striking the votes of banned or blocked users) that aren't applicable here. So you trying to undo my rewording of my own comments, and give me a warning on my talk page for it, was improper — I most certainly am allowed to reword my own comments in a discussion if it becomes clear that what I'm trying to say has been misunderstood. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nom. I appreciate the creator put in good-faith work on this article but Flint is a city of 100,000 people. Being a councillor/official in such a city is not a notable position per WP:NPOL. Only local councillors in cities such as London, New York or Delhi would be likely notable. Registrar of deeds in a city of Michigan is not a sub-national post, it is a local post. Sub-national is clarified at NPOL as "statewide/provincewide". Coverage is purely local. AusLondonder (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: States in the US are unitary like the UK thus the state is local government. Secondly, the nominator hinted/indicated that a metropolitan city councilor like in Flint, where McCree was also Council president, could count as notable, but yes I pointed out the draw back (via the mayors' individual articles) in that London, New York and Delhi councilors should be targeted for AfD. The position is not "Registrar of deeds in a city of Michigan", but Register of Deeds for Genesee County. Spshu (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, states are not "unitary like the UK". There are three distinct levels of government in the United States — federal, state and local — and counties are a form of local government, not a form of state government. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but states per various Federal Court rules have declared that states in the US ARE unitary forms of government declaring state legislative representative for a house to be based on county (federalism between the state & county) as illegal. (Reynolds v. Sims. (n.d.) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved June 15 2016 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reynolds+v.+Sims : "The Court also rejected Alabama's contention that it should be allowed to apportion its Senate based on the equal representation of units of government, in this case counties, rather than of people. Alabama's argument was based on the so-called federal analogy, a reference to the U.S. Senate, where each state has two seats regardless of population. Warren dismissed this analogy, calling it 'irrelevant to state legislative redistricting schemes.'") In fact Flint and a number of other state government units were taken over by the state (Flint twice - challenged in court and upheld the first time around) setting aside its home rule government for an emergency manager (Financial emergency in Michigan). Spshu (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of which even has anything whatsoever to do with what I said. The fact that counties exist as a statewide system of local government subdivisions does not mean that every individual officeholder at the county level is a statewide officeholder — whether an office is "statewide" or "local" is a factor of the jurisdictional area that he's personally responsible for in that particular office, not whether it's an exemplar of a statewide system of offices. To be considered a holder of statewide office, he would have to literally be responsible for the entire state of Michigan — if he's only responsible for Genesee County, then he's a local officeholder. The apportionment of Congressional districts has nothing whatosever to do with the jurisdictional area of a county clerk. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does have to do with your whole post: "[ No, states are not 'unitary like the UK'.]" State government is the local government. The issue was not Congressional district apportionment, the states attempt to link the counties status with the state similar to that of the state with in the Federal government Spshu (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, state government is not local government; there are counties and towns and villages and townships existing as another level of government below that of the state. A "unitary" government would have no separate level of government subdivisions below it, and would be directly responsible for the provision of all local services across the entire unit. A government is not "unitary" if it has further subdivisions of more locally-focused governments operating under it — you're definitely misunderstanding that federal court decision if you think it has anything whatsoever to do with this. Bearcat (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am correct. Encyclopædia Britannica: "In the United States, all states have unitary governments..." "In a unitary system the central government commonly delegates authority to subnational units..." Spshu (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that county government is not state government; a registrar of deeds at the county level is not a state-level officeholder, but a county-level officeholder. Mayors and city councillors and town clerks and registrars at the county or municipal level are not officers of the state; they are officers of municipal government entities below the level of the state government. But for Wikipedia's purposes, the state government is the lowest level of office that guarantees a person automatic inclusion rights, while county or city governments do not — and arguing about whether the definition of "unitary" encompasses the relationship of states to municipalities or not does not change the fact that an individual county clerk is responsible for a jurisdictional area which does not encompass the entire state, but is limited to the area of one county within it. You're trying to compare this to the UK — but a registrar of deeds at the county level in the UK, or a run-of-the-mill city councillor without nationalized prominence in some midsize place like Salford or Milton Keynes, wouldn't get an article on those bases either. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN local politician. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Flint is not a city that is large enough to confer on the members of the city council notability. I live in Sterling Heights, Michigan, a larger city than Flint, and I would support for deletion any article on our mayor, Michael Taylor, or any member of the city council, without enough sources to clearly pass GNG. The same applies for the smaller city of Flint.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the register of deeds in Genesee County is an officer of the county, with power limited to the county, and not of the state. They are clearly not at the sub-national level of power, and no where near notable. A county prosecutor, who due to overseeing the decisions on pushing criminal charges, such as Kym Worthy is notable. However Ms. Worthy gets widely mentioned in Metro-Detroit area radio, and there have been days just in the last month in which she has been mentioned in the local news in relation to two non-related cases. Her role in such cases as that of the prosecution of the police officers accused of killing Malice Green may well have even made her notable back when she was only an assistant prosecutor, but I would not argue that the Wayne County Register of Deeds in notable, let alone the Genessee County Register of Deeds. I am not even sure I would argue that the Macomb County and Oakland County prosecutors are notable, and those 3rd and second most populous counties in Michigan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I carefully examined the article and simply found nothing nothing both for politicians and general notability, the article contains nothing else acceptable from there. His campaign was certainly not suggestive either. SwisterTwister talk 00:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (W). There is a consensus here that this individual does not have enough significant coverage at the moment to pass the general notability guideline. No one has objected to the suggestion of a redirect though, so I will do that per WP:CHEAP. Jenks24 (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Weiss

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

Does not meet notability guidelines (low-ranking soldier), nor WP:SOLDIER, as no source for the Knight's Cross has been provided. The article has been tagged since 2013. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I was unable to verify the Knight's Cross, and he fails WP:GNG, regardless. GAB^gab 21:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment: Following the suggestion on my Talk page, I'm providing a Oct 2015 version of the article, before I edited it. The article's material was not cited to any sources, and the article has already been tagged "Refimprove" since 2013. The same editor pointed out to me that the names of Knight's Cross recipients are often listed in list articles, which s indeed the case here: List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (W), with a citation for the Knight's Cross.

However, it's unclear to me why a stand-alone article is needed while the same information is provided in the list article. Google book search results produce hits to Willi Fey and a few brief mentions in Waffen-SS Armour in Normandy: The Combat History of SS Panzer Regiment 12 by Norbert Számvéber; a self-published author Florian Berger of Selbstverlag ("self-published") Florian Berger; and Bruce Quarrie, a non RS author. I don't believe this meets GNG.

Also pinging GeneralizationsAreBad to see if they would like to revisit with the new information. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added a couple of references to the article. I'm not sure if sigcov is met, though, but I do think it needs to be clarified if the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was the highest award available, per my comments here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georg Schönberger. Can anyone help in this regard? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm thinking that perhaps a redirect to the main recipient list would be the best way to go here. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. This is a similar situation to the Paul Senghas AFD, where the individual now passes WP:SOLDIER as a reference to the Knight's Cross has been provided, but remains a non-notable individual nonetheless due to their failing GNG. As I said there, "SOLDIER says that "individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify" if they have received the highest valour award... There is not sufficient coverage, regardless of the reference for the Knight's Cross, to meet GNG standards. After all, SOLDIER is an essay, while GNG is a policy. I continue to support deletion." GAB^gab 23:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the Knight's Award is the best claim here but even then, the article is still questionable thus delete as there's nothing else to suggest the convincing notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 00:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Spam poetry. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 17:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spoetry

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

I cannot find external evidence of notability. There is a Guardian article written by the author of the Spoetry book. The other links are 404 or blogs. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 16:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spam Lit. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or Merge with Spam Lit (suggesting we keep this article only because it's older), and Rename the result to Spam poetry. There's poetry and literary prose in spam email to get around spam filters which has been written about quite a bit, and there are people who create poetry from spam. The former (which right now is called "Spam Lit" but only because of a Guardian article) is the more notable, but there's no reason not to mention both, since they're often covered together and obviously related. "Spam poetry" is mentioned in many places (far more than "spam lit"), but sources call it different things (talking about poetry breeds poetic descriptors like so many roses cut by their owners' diamond shears). "Spam poetry" is both among the most used and the most plainly descriptive. Sources are easy to find. I can link them later if someone wants, but it just took a quick googling. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a rename to 'Spam poetry' would be appropriate here if the topic is felt to be notable. The term Spoetry is just a plug for one guy's book, really. The page should refer to the phenomenon more generally. But I maintain that Spam Lit doesn't belong here as it is a different phenomenon altogether. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 14:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dubbin: Different altogether? Many of the links in the spoetry article also talk about spam lit, often in ways that overlap. Maybe it would be more accurate to call the joint subject "Spam and poetry" but they're certainly not unrelated. These are articles linked in from Spoetry:

In fact The Guardian seems to define spoetry in the way we define spam lit. It isn't about making poetry from spam, it's the poetry in spam.

BBC and others explain how the of composing poetry based on spam (~"spoetry") seems to have started with the recognition of literary value of spam as spammers tried to get around filters, etc. (~"spam lit"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, spammers using literary works to bypass filters feeds into the pre-existing trend of people thinking spam is sometimes poetic. But the two phenomena are still separate. If spammers started using the ingredients from packets of cereal, some of those might end up as 'spam poetry' but it wouldn't mean 'spam ingredients' are synonymous with 'spam poetry'. At best, what unites these topics is that they are connected with spam (one contributing to it, the other being derived from it). The sources are confusing and confused here, but I think we can still be methodical while respecting them. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 12:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I'm not arguing that the two are synonymous -- just that they can be covered in one article because they're so closely related/overlapping. Many of the sources overlap to cover both and the terms they use are inconsistent and sometimes flipped. The spam poetry article I'm advocating for would talk about both, explaining how they connect and differ. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I agree they overlap, but I think the relationship is not Spam poetry > Spam lit but rather that they are both (unequal) subordinates of Spam. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 15:05, 2 June 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) 05:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge" or "Merge and Rename" -- I think the concept behind this article has had it's notability well established, with multiple books and articles being written about the topic. That said, it's ONE concept, and we already have an article on it in Spam Lit, but the name for the concept still seems to be in flux. Spoetry should absolutely NOT be the article name though... it's a term coined by only one book (and multiple books have been written), and as such is basically a neologism without backing. Spam Lit has a bit of support, but I like Spam poetry better, as being purely descriptive. In summary, merge the articles, and then either keep Spam Lit or rename Spam Lit to Spam Poetry (which I would prefer). Fieari (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is probably the closest we'll get to consensus. I'm happier with a move+merge than with the current situation, anyway. Support moving Spoetry to Spam poetry and merging Spam lit into it. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 11:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inquizzitive

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

Unreferenced advert for an annual alumni quiz with no indication of notability per WP:EVENT. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. OnionRing (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 04:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 04:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are not providing minimal coverage to qualify an article per WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I noticeably found nothing better, nothing at all to suggest the needed solidity. SwisterTwister talk 00:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, not enough WP:RS on this subject - Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Relativistic Trolley Paradox

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

Entirely based on a recent primary source (written by the author himself (Oleg V. Matvejev, Olgmtv (talk · contribs) and, based on ISP location likely 90.140.224.89 (talk · contribs)), no secondary sources can be found DVdm (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. DVdm (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 0 cites on GScholar, probably because it was just published (but that is an argument against keeping). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously does not pass WP:GNG.T R 14:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One primary source so does not pass our notability guidelines. DeVerm (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No comment except to say that any article that made AJP needs to be included in Wikimedia. I have saved a copy on Wikiversity, attributed to User:Olgmtv.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I don't know how Wikiversity works, but that looks both an overlarge ambition and a copyright infringement magnet. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, about the copyvio : Wikiversity has the same rules as Wikipedia. If this article is a copyvio it cannot appear on Wikiversity. Second, about the "overlarge ambition": I'm not sure what you meant, but my guess is that I mislead you with the phrase "any article that made AJP needs to be on Wikiversity". I should have referred to "any article notable enough for AJP..." Also, I believe that an open source wikisister that hosts a number of refereed journals can and will eventually grow to become larger than AJP. At the moment, that sister happens to be Wikiversity, but some people want to move the operation to a different wiki. See v:Wikiversity_Journal_User_Group.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self-collapsing of off-topic comment, Wikiversity policies are not relevant to what happens inside WP. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could have guessed the rules about the copyvio, my point was just that a systematic policy of pulling AJP content sounds dangerous. It is inevitable that someone will do a mistake at some point. I do not see how "any article notable enough for AJP..." is different, it means that eventually all content from AJP should be pulled to Wikiversity. I do appreciate that AJP is a respectable journal so it does not publish cranks, but by Wikipedia standards a single article (even in Science or Nature) is not enough to establish notability: you need third-party discussion, refs, etc. Wikiversity probably has a different philosophy on that point but surely some form of WP:IINFO and WP:GNG exist: it cannot be "everything every researcher ever published in a serious peer-reviewed paper is fit for us", can it?

Please note that paradox is very spectacular itself, despite it is a brand-new one. Sure, I would like to make it available to the readers. Anyone studying SR will truly enjoy considering this task. It includes several related topics including shape of a rolling relativistic wheel. Olgmtv (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but see WP:NOTESSAY: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought." - DVdm (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Very spectacular"? I do not see how this is more than a complex version of the ladder paradox. But well, I am not a reviewer at AJP. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This needs to be covered in multiple reliable sources. As it stands now, it is original research, not what different sources are saying about this topic. I agree that AJP is a reputable journal, so this may turn out to be a case of showing up on Wikipedia too soon.---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, DVdm's comment is on point with WP:NOTESSAY ----Steve Quinn (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Brohn

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

Inadequately sourced WP:BLP of a politician notable only as a registrar of deeds at the county level. This is not an office that gets a person over WP:NPOL, so it's WP:GNG or bust -- but there are just two exclusively local sources here, both covering him in the context of criminal matters. Embezzling $561, and having to register as a sex offender, are not things that make a person suitable for permanent inclusion in an encyclopedia in and of themselves -- so the grounds for inclusion here remain at "county clerk", which is not grounds for inclusion. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Inadequately sourced"??? It is and was 99% sourced. Register of deeds is a "sub-national" post (counties being a part of state government), part of the WP:NPOL standards, if not you have to spend months just listing for deletion various individual mayors of cities articles. He is also notable for how he got the position (only other Democratic to file for the primary when the incumbent died in a virtual one party county) then having to be ousted from office for misuse of government funds. I have added a source from the The Fresno Bee at Merced Sun-Star which is reliable but is it significant enough coverage of Brohn. The local paper (The Flint Journal) is also a (state) regional (metro) newspaper and the website (Mlive.com) that its articles are hosted on is a state wide news site. Also, I guess I assumed that additional sources would be found when I created the article. Spshu (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Sub-national post", in WP:NPOL, refers to state-level offices, like the state governor or members of the state legislature, and not to municipal offices. Municipal officeholders are permitted on a case-by-case basis under NPOL #3, where the depth and quality of the sourcing that can be provided is what makes the difference between a keep and a delete — and the way the rule works is that for most cities, only the mayor is even a maybe (conditional on sourceability), while even city councillors normally get included only in the very largest metropolitan global cities and anybody below that gets included very nearly never. Bearcat (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nom. I appreciate the creator put in good-faith work on this article but being a county registrar of deeds is not a statewide position as set out at WP:NPOL. Coverage relates entirely to criminal matters and he fails WP:CRIMINAL in that context. AusLondonder (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County officials are not generally notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly embezzlement is too common to make a person notable. This will get local coverage but nothing more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Genessee County (its main city is Flint) might be a place that the county executive was default notable, but they lack such, but the register of deeds is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining the article still found nothing for any actual convincing signs for independent notability and there's simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aam Aadmi Party. MBisanz ^talk 21:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aam Aadmi Party Kerala

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

Minor branch party with no elected members. Fails WP:NOTABLE. RaviC (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The Aam Aadmi Party is notable as a party in India in general, as they are the majority party in the Delhi Legislative Assembly and also hold a few seats in the national parliament (Lok Sabha). However, I do not know whether that implies that the other state branches of the party are likely to be notable as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a state branch of a notable party it already has some claim to notability. The coverage at Indian newspapers search confirms that for me. AusLondonder (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Electoral Commission of India designate the AAP as a state party in two states, Delhi and Punjab. The party is not designated as a national party and only achieved 5% of votes according to the article in question itself, so fails the notability rationale. The article is almost entirely unreferenced. Furthermore, no other Indian political parties have pages for each state they are present in. --RaviC (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beg to differ with RaviC on that as we do have Category:Indian National Congress by state. Although we should note that INC and AAM's internal structures of state-wise groups are to be studied to gauge this. But just going by GNG, this can simply be merged together. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't seen those articles for the INC. Nevertheless, the INC is a national party with elected legislators across India whereas the AAP is only a state party. --RaviC (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move to Draft or Merge to Aam Aadmi Party . The article is a mess and looks more like a propaganda page exercise. No independent notability of Kerela Unit apart from what is inherited from national unit. ChunnuBhai (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consider Merge and Redirect as my searches have found some links but there is still not the obvious certainty whether this can in fact be independently notable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Aam Aadmi Party Kerala article doesn't assert that it has won a seat from any election, but the Aam Aadmi Party article does: "In May 2015, the AAP won a seat in the municipal bye-election from Cherthalai-Arthungal in Alappuzha district of Kerala. The AAP candidate, Tomi Ellessery, defeated the CPM candidate by 3 votes.^[1]

References

^ "Arvind Kejriwal's AAP enters Kerala, wins ward seat". intoday.in.

So the premise of the deletion nomination (that it has no elected candidates) seems not to be exactly correct. --do ncr am 16:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. Definitely Wikipedia:Too soon. Coderzombie (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is NOT a political party but state branch of the political party. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a political party as such but a state branch of a national political party; we do not usually have separate articles in such cases. Nsk92 (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 former bus stations in Singapore. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taman Jurong Bus Terminal

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

Merge with List of former bus stations in Singapore. 2679D (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. The bus terminal is not notable enough to have a separate article, but does merit a mention in the List of former bus stations in Singapore. Till recently it was one of the few roadside bus terminals. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2679D, I have gone ahead and merged some of the content (image and reference). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lemongirl942 Thanks for that. 2679D (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:20, 7 June 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) 06:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to List of former bus stations in Singapore - per nom. Class455fan1 (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Noting that delete and merge is not a possible outcome and the rest of the discussion is mainly debate about whether the sources significant coverage or not. Jenks24 (talk) 08:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian High Commissioners to Jamaica

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

fails WP:GNG. a position that no longer exists. 8 of the 11 sources are actually primarily about another ambassador position. Let's see if the usual suspect turns up with WP:MUSTBESOURCES or "clearly surpasses notability " vague arguments LibStar (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not temporary. The Canberra Times articles within the article verify notability. Clare. (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

both those articles are routine coverage that confirm the appointment of ambassador. There is no indepth coverage (in fact most of the coverage in the article isn't even about Jamaica or touches it very lightly) to suggest a list of resident and non resident ambassadors is notable. LibStar (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Clare. No surprises that this article was nominated about two hours after his last AfD on this series of articles was kept, continuing in the series of WP:POINT nominations. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

your WP:ADHOM attacks continue. I'm sure admin @Coffee: has seen your pattern of behaviour. LibStar (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not to mention this is a WP:PERNOM !vote and another non genuine attempt to demonstrate notability on your part, that seems to be motivated by WP:ADHOM and nothing else. LibStar (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge info. I agree with the nominator. As per the AFD discussion on the Australian Ambassadors to Kazakhstan page, this info could easily be placed on the List of Australian High Commissioners to Trinidad and Tobago page, which will strengthen that page and not lose anything worth saying about this subject, of which there appears to be little. Also a reminder to commenters to keep it CIVIL, we can have a rational discussion without hurling insults, veiled or otherwise, at each other.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar I would also consider nominating List of Australian High Commissioners to Barbados for deletion on this same basis.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Siegfried Nugent: One matter is that if the article is first deleted, a merge may not ever be performed, because most users won't be able to access the content of the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:20, 7 June 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) 06:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Chew Jr.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 11:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Also, more importantly, just noticed that this is a SPEEDY DELETE as per G4 (see here). Thanks, Quis separabit? 14:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sorry nominator, but no. I looked at both versions, and as this newer article is different enough from that which was previously deleted, it does not qualify for a G4 speedy. It has other issues, but that is not one of them. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK: FAIR ENOUGH. Quis separabit? 17:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking further

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

Comment: If his long career and many roles are properly verified, he may be seen as meeting WP:ENT even without being personally the sole topic of sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead for now at best because his list of works show nothing outstanding to suggest he had any longtime works and there's also nothing else convincing so it's unlikely there's anything to suggest the exact solidity this would need to be acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Do you believe WP:ENT should be itself deleted from guideline? Or that WP:IMPERFECT and WP:WIP should be deleted because they encourage work? Or do you feel that WP:GNGACTOR is not based upon existing guidelines? And how do you feel about articles being placed in draftspace where they might be improved? What is your opinion about WP:BEFORE? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack adequate sources to justify an article, and his roles really were never major.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep borderline, as has a lot of minor roles but he does have some prominent roles , at least one lead and a number of 4th and 5th billings so WP:NACTOR is passed More RS needed, will look..Have added some extra references to the article. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:50, 7 June 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) 06:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the Fence: Character actor with mainly TV guest/bit parts (largest series role -- assuming IMDB is correct -- was eight Bionic Woman episodes), not much else in the way of meeting WP:NACTOR#1, and with no significant coverage of his acting found. What is out there (beside recent interview as an Oscars voter here and passing notice such as Variety's review of 40 Carats), is a little coverage in old Suzy Knickerbocker society pages before his move to Hollywood (eg wedding of the season), something in House and Garden, and some material relating to the transfer of his family's home to the National Trust. There's some level of notability, and no sane redirect/merge (including to Cliveden), so a very marginal WP:NPOINTS keep might be in order, on the presumption that some of his work (particularly Rattlers and Serial) would have RS coverage (possibly offline). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 15:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EnlightenNext

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

WP:NME does not seem to be satisfied here. The secondary sources cited are all trivial or marginal mentions of this magazine and the awards won are not of the significant sort (Webby, Eddie, and Ozzie awards are bottom of the barrel sorts). Since the magazine is no longer in publication, we can safely assume that basically all that will ever be written about this thing has been written and there isn't much left for establishing notability besides. jps (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:18, 7 June 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) 06:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As noted, no evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources has been provided. Jenks24 (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virus (British band)

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

This band has been tagged for sources (there are none) and notability for seven years. The page is a magnet for BLP violations, as happened with a spate of editing today. I looked for reliable sources to help improve this situation and I could not find any (others may have more success). I don't believe we should continue to have this article in the absence of any sources. Fences&Windows 18:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. I reverted a whole swathe of junk edits but could see nothing of value. Some subsequent editing to shape it up a little has revealed the dearth of any shreds of notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found possible references quite easily; "coke+finlay" my first google. Not a great many, but they do exist and nothing to suggest that more couldn't be found. The band is minor, but passes WP:BAND without difficulty. The article is not disastrously bad, it simply needs improvement and cites. It has attracted vandalism of late, but that is not a reason for deleting articles. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Escape Orbit, I also looked for band members. Difference is, I didn't find reliable sources giving significant coverage. Show them here please or better yet add them to the article. Fences&Windows 00:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing else better at all, searches found nothing better and there's simply nothing else convincing. Even if this could actually be improved, it's best restarted....if ever. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:16, 7 June 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) 06:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ontario Sports Hall of Fame. T. Canens (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Williams Media Award

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

This award does not satisfy WP:GNG in that there is not significant coverage in multiple, reliable and independent sources. The current sourcing is not independent, as it is from the organization that grants the award. The article also appears to raise Wikipedia:Conflict of interest problems. Most of the Ontario Sports Hall of Fame-related articles were created by User:Rajeevanm, an editor whose edits since 2014 relate principally to the OSHOF. Interestingly, the user name is very close to the name of the OSHOF's director of marketing. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 00:41, 29 May 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 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A related AfD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Hawley Community Service Award. Cbl62 (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Ontario Sports Hall of Fame I Checked by searching awardee in a random year, and it does gets press coverage. Ottawa Citizen [10] The Hamilton Spectator [11]. Just not much coverage. I think redirect to the short page of the Ontario Sports Hall of Fame.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are merely passing references in broader articles about the OSHOF. Not enough to warrant a stand-alone article under WP:GNG. That said, no objection to redirect. Cbl62 (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, media mention tend to be a sentence in an article about an individual winner of an OSHOF prize, or in an article about who won that year's prize. Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto are major cities, so it adds up to quite a lot of big-city daily coverage, although the award is only 3 years old.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Hi E.M.Gregory, thanks for your comment. I apologize for the late reply since I'm still learning how to use the "talk" feature. I've added several independent sources to the article, check here: Toronto Star [12], Toronto Sun [13], ArgoAdmirals [14], Toronto Star [15], The Hamilton Spectator [16], Ottawa Citizen Sports Hall of Fame. The award recipients are high-profile members of sports media in Ontario, Canada. I believe there is enough to warrant a stand-alone article under WP:GNG. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks! Rajeevanm (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you mention may constitute significant coverage of the OSHOF, but they do not constitute significant coverage of the Hawley Award. The references given merely contain passing reference to the Hawley Award. Such passing references are insufficient under GNG to support a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the sources brought by User:Rajeevanm show that this journalism prize award, the Brian Williams Media Award ( Hawley is something else) is covered extensively in major media when awarded. It is =, in other words, a real if m=minor journalisam prize. Changing my !Vote to Keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Can you specify which of these articles you believe constitutes "significant" coverage of the Hamilton Award as opposed to a passing reference? Cbl62 (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These newspapers validate this award by covering it. I don't think that in this it is different from other journalism awards, and certainly seems similar to the Casey Award, and others in the category:Sports writing awards, which I just added to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk)

The standard under WP:GNG is that there needs to be "significant" coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. The sources mentioned amount to passing reference in broader discussion of the OSHOF, not "significant" coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When a major institution gives a journalism prize, and major newspapers cover it, that's notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: 1) OSHOF is hardly a "major" institution, it doesn't even have a full-time staff or building; and 2) it's not notable unless it gets significant coverage, not just passing mentions. Cbl62 (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, to the OSHOF article or more specifically to a new section within it. The award information is short and can easily be included in the OSHOF article, if this is a significant program of the OSHOF. I "voted" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Hawley Community Service Award the same way. --do ncr am 20:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The related Afd, Articles for deletion/Sandy Hawley Community Service Award was closed as merge into Ontario Sports Hall of Fame. --J04n(talk page) 12:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this is best connected to that, there's nothing to suggest it can currently be improved as its own article. If needed, any contents can be merged when needed. SwisterTwister talk 00:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ontario Sports Hall of Fame. This is a valid search target, but is not notable enough to have it's own article. On the other hand, Ontario Sports Hall of Fame is quite a short article. Mentioning this over there would keep all the information in the same article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthem of East Turkestan

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

The source for this article is the website for the "East Turkestan Government-in-Exile" a group that is not recognized to represent any particular group of people. There is an East Turkestan separatist movement, but as no actual nation has yet been formed or recognized, no "national anthem" can yet exist for the group. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 05:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete not all national anthems are notable. Kimigayo is. Advise patience to East Turkestan, give it a thousand years or so. Notability may accrue.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:FRINGE in addition to WP:RS and the usual WP:V problems. MSJapan (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 10:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Seth

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

a promotional article for an astrologer with no plausible reason for notability,

The article seems to be mainly composed of his predictions, but it's hard for me to decipher what was actually claimed, and when DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Lack of RS. Not quite sure why this came to academic Afd. Did the subject predict if his BLP would be deleted or not? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete by all means, nothing at all minimally convincing for any notability and the mass of contents are not helping at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 and G11. Unsourced bragging by non-notable astrologer, who claims lots of famous people emailed him their birth dates, and that lots of stuff he predicted came true. The only "reference" is a link to his profile on an astrology wiki "Astrodatabank", empty apart from a link to a locked Facebook page. Article was created by account Botme7, then mostly edited by older account Bondme7. This seems to be a pattern: Botme7 attempted several times to create Astrodatabank, first under that spelling and then another after the first was salted. Ashish Seth is the only other article that this WP:SPA account has been used for. I've removed the giant unsourced bragging list, and there's virtually nothing left. OnionRing (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User Ether7 has a user page which consists of a draft of this article, created April 24 [17]. His other helpful contributions include repeatedly removing the speedy tag from this article: [18], [19], [20], creating Astrodatabank, and writing in a style spookily similar to Bondme7: [21]. SPI, ahoy! OnionRing (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per A7. I already did this once, but the article's been recreated. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has Significant coverage,verifiability,has third-party source,I have added valid reference to this page [22]Bondme7(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By far that's simply not enough. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically an A7 case. Note also that the article's creator User:Botme7, and User:Etherseven, mentioned above, have been indef blocked as socks of User:Bondme7, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bondme7. Also, User:Bondme7 has been blocked for a week as well. Nsk92 (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one claim I can discern in the article, and this takes a lot of discenring, is that Ashish Seth emails notable people to gather information on them, and also reads the paper. Even assuming we could keep this without a source, there is no real claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Art Stewart (producer)

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

Fails WP:GNG; just another backroom boy. TheLongTone (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quote:"just another backroom boy", I suggest you have a look at his credentials my friend. Songwriter, producer, engineer etc. His productions ..... Here. Technical .... Here. Song writing credits .... Here. So much more. Well, if he's a "back room boy", he is certainly not "just another", he's one notable backroom man" who engineered and produced many hits over 3 decades at least Karl Twist (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per my comment @ 10:30, 10 June 2016. Stewart may be a "back room" man as most producers and engineers are, but certainly notable. Karl Twist (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He's also a composer

References do not back up claim. Any producer will get mentions, eg liner notes or articles about other people. TheLongTone (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some do!. He's notable as a composer, producer and sound engineer. Almost as notable as The Funk Brothers. And just as important in the Motown hit making machine. Art Stewart has legendary status as you will soon discover my amigo. Karl Twist (talk) 06:00, 11 June 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) 05:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.
The article has a lot of reliable sources. He is a notable producer and composer.--88marcus (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AfD withdrawn--see my note below DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Maris Church, Cayman Brac

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

not notable church. Speedy declined as outsides A7 scope, but a church is an organization. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is referenced, it has a neutral wording, and is no different than hundreds of other articles of similar religious buildings such as mosques, synagogues, Buddhist temples, etc. The importance of these buildings varies according to personal opinion. In this case the building stands out because it is the only Catholic church on the island. Religion is part of the culture of a country. And thus it is always relevant. I just participated in wikipedia in English because I want to contribute with specific data that I think are relevant.--Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I edited the article to add the "stand out" assertion that it is the only Catholic church on the island, and to reflect that the church is an organization as well as a building (as articles on churches should, and generally do). I also added other info and an external link. I agree with Guaicaipuro that the article is referenced and is neutrally worded, and also that the dividing line on notability of churches is not black & white. Being the only church of its religion on an island is not a regular notability standard, of course, but maybe it works here? And it seems unusual to me that the it is part of the archdiocese of Detroit, Michigan. But it would be more obviously notable if some horrific news-transfixing event had happened there or if other more independent sourcing was found.

If the outcome of this AFD is not to Keep, then the material should be merged to somewhere, perhaps the Archdiocese of Detroit article which mentions the Cayman Islands and includes a table of notable churches. There is no separate Religion in the Cayman Islands article (currently a redlink) where it could go, but I find there is an article section Demographics of the Cayman Islands#Religion. It could be covered in both that section and the archdiocese of Detroit article, but rather than repeating the information it may be best to keep it covered in one place, and given brief links from the other two. This avoiding-repetition/saving-space argument is a valid type of justification for having a separate article that comes up occasionally but I think is not mentioned in our guidelines for keeping or deleting articles. --do ncr am 17:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing the AfD. A little further reading has clarified for me that this particular church has a very exceptional jurisdictional arrangement (at least very exceptional for the present time) ,and that this might reasonably be a justification for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. — ξ ^xplicit 00:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1000nen, Zutto Soba ni Ite...

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

Does not pass WP:NMG. Please merge or delete. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator". I am rescinding this AfD that I created based on information from User:Cavarrone's Ivote below. The article passes notability requirements and will become a Speedy Keep. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The song appears to pass WP:NSONG for having charted in multiple national sales charts (including a third place on Billboard Japan Hot 100, third on Oricon and first on Taiwanese G-Music Chart). There are obvious language barriers which makes searches very hard, but there is little doubt some coverage exists. At the same time this AfD seems a case of systematic bias, as no one would ever nominate a song ranking third on Billboard US charts for deletion (and even if they would, the discussion would be closed in minutes). I'm going with procedural keep as a song with such a verifiable success should be at least merged and redirected to its parent article (as suggested by the same nominator), but not deleted in any way. Cavarrone 11:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cavarrone: I didn't see where it charted, that is the reason I put this in AfD. Also, it was tagged for notability in the first place. The references seemed to be unintelligible. But if you want to vouch for this then I will withdraw the AfD. I will just attribute this to my inability to determine what the sources were saying. What you are saying matches what this article indicates and I don't see any need to merge - I agree with Keep. Now I have to figure out how to withdraw this AfD. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as G11.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trackhat

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

Deprodded by the article creator. The article does not satisfy NCORP and there's a lack of available reliable sources. Maybe somebody in the UK will be able to find sources through the UK google.Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found (on UK Google) a fair amount of discussion of the company's products on forums, and a couple of blog pieces, but nothing in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nicktoons characters

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

All content in this article is already covered by the shows' respective articles and contributes nothing that isn't already covered by said articles. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 03:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources and no actual new content... Sro23 (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pointless. All of the material is in the main articles and there is no specific reason for this combination of characters. List of NBC sitcom characters? List of Doubleday novel characters? List of CBS reality show contestants? - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per SummerPhDv2.0 Class455fan1 (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, non-encyclopedic content more suited to a fansite(Ajf773 (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as there's a clear consensus, nothing at all actually suggesting its own solid convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blended artists community bangladesh

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

Non-notable organisation in Bangladesh. I couldn't find any independent references for it (in English language media). I had a look at the Twitter account (13 followers) and Facebook page (10 likes) which makes me feel this is not notable at all. The article seems to be written by an editor with a conflict of interest. I first thought of tagging it as G11 but then decided to AfD it in case non-English language references exist and the article is improved in the meantime. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete of no value in present form — billinghurst sDrewth 14:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was probably supposed to be "Blender artists community Bangladesh", not "Blended artists community bangladesh". A non-notable user group for users of Blender (software). Mduvekot (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I myself frankly nearly speedy tagged and I would've also explored PROD, however, considering chances are there will be attempts at restarting this, it's best deleted altogether as there's by far nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 20:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RevTwo

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

Although many refs are provided they are all in a very niche market and most (all?) appear to be press releases. I can see nothing significant and independent that provides notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs some cleanup but is covered in reliable sources more than just a passing mention. Meatsgains (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches have found nothing noticeably better, it's still newly founded so we should expect the state of sourced and coverage available. This is best deleted and restarted if better is available later. There's nothing else particularly better from the article to suggest saving.

SwisterTwister talk 00:56, 9 June 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, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see anythingt hat looks like a suficiently substantial source. DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nobody other than the nominator has opined for deletion, and the discussion has provided no consensus for a particular action to be carried out. Discussion about a potential merge can continue on an article talk page if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Pakman

AfDs for this article:

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

Certainly time for another AfD since that was hardly a consensus in 2007 and Wikipedia has enormously changed since then, my own searches have found only a few links at News and then one at Highbeam, nothing at all and the current article, I should note, has basically nearly all links to either YouTube or his own website. Only one is independent and it never actually loads apparently thus nothing is solidly convincing of acceptable notability here. This article also seems quite troubled and controversy-oriented as the history shows years and years of vandalism so this is certainly something that is questionable not only to notability but overall; existing since December 2005 when an IP started it and the first few changes were actually both IPs and a "Dpackman" user and I should also note that, with this, there has never been any noticeably consistently beneficial changes to this article to suggest outstanding. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to The David Pakman Show Certainly this article and the one on The David Pakman Show are over-sourced, over-hyped, blatant WP:PROMO for a self-promoting self-promoter, he may nevertheless might marginally pass WP:CREATIVE because the show is boradcast and does once in a while generate major coverage. I can, however, find little in the way of profile/bio that marks him as independently notable (added a profile article from something called businesswest.com to the article) I think he could be most reasonable merged into his show, since both subjects are marginally notable, at best. Pakman mostly turns up in searches when he scores an unusual interview that goes viral, and even then usually on places like a HuffPost blog [23]. Indeed, his notability largely consists of aiming to go viral on YouTube. and occasionally suceeding. But this gdoes not generate significant coverage in mainstream media. Note also that the more notable David Pakman is a venture capitalist who founded a online music companies emusic and myplay and has been covered quite a lot as a partner in the venture capital firm Venrock. The investor David Pakman could support an article and would probably be the primary if this article is kept.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:JOURNALIST via "widely cited by peers or successors". Even a cursory Google hit returns a whole lot of coverage of his work (not just his show, but also his writing e.g. at the Huffington Post). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definitively notable, countless proper media appearances. Bigger radio syndication than countless other radio hosts whose pages exist on Wikipedia. Far more television appearances than political commentators and analysts whose pages exist on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:C801:5F5:8C10:18A0:D5C4:136 (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFF exists shouldn't be used as an argument to justify the existence of this article. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems to have a fair number of sources, so it passes WP:GNG by me. This guy does appear to be referenced a lot. Antrocent (♫♬) 03:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to The David Pakman Show. We'd have to demonstrate that David Pakman has notability independent from the The David Pakman Show. Many of the sources on this page are from WP:SPS, and coverage from 3rd parties is related to commentary or interviews with subjects notable for single events. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CloudLMS

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

Thrice-recreated article about a software product. Fails WP:GNG for lack of available reliable sources. - Mr X 12:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You've written that this article has been recreated several times, but I couldn't find old afd's for it. Could you expand on what you found for previously deleted versions? Dialectric (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, if you click on the "logs" link above (or here) you will see that it was deleted twice before. The previous version that I reviewed was similar to the current version.- Mr X 15:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better and the article contains nothing else particularly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources. Tom29739 ^[talk] 20:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Fails WP:GNG by a mile.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Aaron

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

The only reference is to her personal website. All her books were vanity publications: http://rachelaaron.net/booksellers.php ("self-published") Lrieber (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing for any applicable notability, the current sources are not solidly convincing and there's nothing else to suggest her career as an author has suggested anything otherwise convincing. SwisterTwister talk 08:08, 6 June 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) 05:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think WP:BEFORE was done. You also need to look under her pseudonym. I have added reviews and information from The Washington Post, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal and Kirkus to the article. With multiple reviews of her work in RS, she passes WP:CREATIVE #4 for significant critical attention. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also should point out that her Eli Monpress and Paradox series were published by Orbit books, part of Hachette, not a "vanity press." Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - third-party reliable sources confirm notability as well as her listing on the Internet Speculative Fiction Database: Summary Bibliography: Rachel Aaron.--☭🎆🌎🎼🎺🐦 07:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A listing of works on ISFD does not make an author notable, reviews from reliable sources and significant awards do, that said, an audiobook version of Nice Dragons Finish Last has been reviewed by AudioFile and has won the 2016 AudioFile Earphones Award [24] so along with other reviews cited in the article this is a Keep as meeting WP:AUTHOR. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and her books have also been reviewd by BookList - [25](subscription required) Coolabahapple (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – My research into Rachel Aaron finds a successful author of legacy-published fantasy works who has progressed into self-publishing (not vanity-published). She certainly is notable and well-known within her genre. Aaron also blogs extensively about the writing process itself. Her published work pertaining to the productivity of creatives probably should be examined and considered for inclusion into her article. Scottyoak2 (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NiKarma

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

I would've basically PRODed too since none of this is actually convincing of any applicable notability and my searches have unsurprisingly found nothing at all therefore there's nothing at all to suggest this is salvageable. Notifying 2010 tagger Gilo1969. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a promotional article for an entertainer who happens to have in the past been an NCAA gymnast, but that is not what is driving her notability here, the article exists to get clients and is written with that goal. Wikipedia is not an advertising service, so we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as seems notable for representing the U.S in gymnastics for three years, rather than the entertainment aspect, article can be edited so it is not promotional. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only legitimate claim to notability appears to be the US Gymnastics team membership, and not every person that's ever been on the team is automatically notable. Nothing else suggests subject ever did anything to reach the required level of notability while on the team. LAroboGuy (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing the notability here. In particular, I don't see how any of the criteria under WP:NGYMNAST have been met. As for notability as an entertainer, the subject doesn't come close. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was no consensus. The "maybe keep" !vote comes across as a possibility for article retention, but the "maybe" part can also mean "possibly, but not certainly" (see a definition of "maybe"). The overall discussion herein doesn't quite convince me to close this with a keep result, which could be considered by some based upon an !vote count, but discussion closures are not based upon an !vote count. Then there's also the matter of very limited participation that has occurred herein after two full relistings. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vasilitsa

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

There are several things to say, one is that the other Wikis show nothing actually convincing to suggest this can be improved because of those, another is that my searches have simply found nothing better than 3 links part of a "travel guide" at News thus not actual solid coverage and also the current article simply suggests it's a local ski resort, nothing particularly outstanding; so unless better Greek sources can be found, which I'm somewhat skeptical, the notability is still currently questionable. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The ski resort does not look notable, at least for a standalone article, but the mountain of the same name that the ski resort is on looks likely to be notable as a natural feature per WP:GEOLAND. The ski resort could probably justify a non-promotional section (of probably only a fairly short paragraph) within an article on the mountain. Though WP:TNT is an option - a straight translation of the Greek article on the mountain would be distinctly better than what we have here at the moment and would probably not reuse any content from the current article. PWilkinson (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

d:Q3659498 d:Q12274909

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep - looks like it needs to be WP:TNT'd and then rebuilt from parts of the Greek article. Tom29739 ^[talk] 22:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Insync

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

My searches have simply found nothing better at all than this so included searches at Books, browsers and WP:INDAFD found nothing better. Also nearly hints at speedy and PROD material since nothing is particularly surprisingly outstanding here including the awards which are simply expected at nearly any other article. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Tom29739 ^[talk] 17:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a non-notable company. The best (and perhaps only) references are [26] and [27], both of which are self published or questionable sources. No mention in any of the national newspapers in India. This fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PHPixie

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

My searches have simply found nothing better at all including for the applicable notability, there's nothing better convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. Of the few gnews hits they are minor mentions. LibStar (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability. Articles need multiple RS independent refs and this has just 1, currently a deadlink, from a german magazine. The other refs are blogs, incidental mentions, and directory listings. A search turned up no further significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable software with no working reliable sources. Tom29739 ^[talk] 20:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. The first "keep" is qualified as weak, and the second does not address the sourcing issue. Sandstein 19:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everyzing

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

Longtime advertorial company article for which my searches are not finding better at all and examining these sources found some better sources than others, for example: Fortune, CNET and USA Today, but there's nothing actually convincing as those articles are not actually in-depth and solid, the USA Today in fact only has a few sentences and the other articles said before are also basically only mentioning the company in part alongside with Google, so there's certainly not inheritable notability. What's also is my searches have basically found nothing including recently so it frankly seems they must not be as active, if that ever happened, at this time considering the article's basic floating state since then (July 2007). SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:Notability is not inherited.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Hmm... there is an article on them on SearchEngine land, which is a highly reputable site for Search engine tech. http://searchengineland.com/a-closer-look-at-everyzing-13849 Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:30, 7 June 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, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company is still in business, but is now known as "Ramp Inc" (www.ramp.com). Their main product is a tool for making video presentations searchable and sharable. The article is badly in need of an update / redirect, but the company seems to be notable on an ongoing basis. JerryRussell (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus isn't exactly strong, but I have given greater weight to the two convincing delete rationales after the second relisting. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyäni

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

Non notable pyramid scheme. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is listing, non reliable sources and PR. Other press releases exist such as this but there is a lack of good independent sourcing. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Company is an international organization with multiple offices in the United States and beyond, has revenue over US$1 billion, and is covered in depth in multiple reliable sources as shown in the article itself. Failing at this, the article can be redirected to List_of_companies_based_in_Idaho. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead as I would've considered keeping but my searches have actually found nothing better so far, and the listed coverage is still questionable for helping the article be better. Notifying DGG for his analysis with these subjects. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain Attheir size they are likely to be notable, but the present references are impossibly weak. I would expect there would be some NPOV discussion of their products, not just their own press releases for them. DGG ( talk ) 13:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - I just added a reference to TruthInAdvertising.org with a bunch of claims made by the organization as well as the response from the company. Since Wikipedia has many stubs, I still believe that deletion would indeed be premature at this point. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, but this fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I searched for sources and couldn't find reliable independent sources for it. The sources in the article are not sufficient. Here is an analysis

TruthInAdvertising.org Advocacy group. Questionable reliability, possibly not independent
arcadiacachamber.org Not independent, local chamber of commerce
[28],[29],[30] - Not independent, Press releases by the company
bestcompany.com Self published source, no indication how reliable and accepted their rating is
evancarmichael.com Self published
mlms.net Self published source
articledashboard.com No indication of reliablity
Manta.com This is a directory and we don't use entries for notability. In addition, Manta (web site) is possibly not notable as well.

Evaluating the above, I believe it does not pass GNG or CORPDEPTH and should be deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Lemongirl942's comments above; blatantly fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG; no extensive coverage in reliable or independent sources. This is the typical Ponzi organisation that bombards the media with press releases and then seeks to create a "presence" on Wikipedia. They claim to help cure "cancer and diabetes based on proven science" - if this doesn't make one queasy, nothing will. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @DGG:, @Duffbeerforme:, @SwisterTwister:, @Lemongirl942:, @FoCuSandLeArN:, @Duffbeerforme:, one last minute thought, if Kyäni cannot be kept, shouldn't Kyani, the settlement in Greece be moved to this location? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. SwisterTwister talk 18:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: I guess after this is deleted, it can be turned into a redirect to Kyani. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Tiedtke

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

My searches have simply found nothing better than this and this which suggest there is some local coverage but nothing actually suggesting the article notability needed for Wikipedia. Basically exactly like this since starting in April 2007 and everything suggests there's nothing improvable thus nothing else convincing this could be kept and improved. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was keep. Closing this as keep after the discussion has been listed for more than three weeks. With MichaelQSchmidt's expansion, nom's withdrawal, and one delete !vote effectively changed to "Keep", only the "Delete at best" !vote - whatever that in reality means - is outstanding. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How Funny

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

The article fails WP:NFILM with the only references provided establish that the film was released not how the film is notable. Dan arndt (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am prepared to withdraw my nomination on the basis that MichaelQSchmidt has made a significant number of improvements (including the provision of reliable independent references), which means that I now consider the article satisfies the basic tennents of WP:FILM however as there are a number of delete votes I'd prefer that an Admin closes the debate. Dan arndt (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What may make a close easy for an admin is that even though their deletes have been addressed though regular editing, relatively new account, Sheepythemouse has limited experience and doesn't add content, and SwisterTwister does not revisit discussions where he has been proven incorrect. Their opinions were toward the unimproved version and thus have far less import. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFILM Sheepythemouse (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering the state of the article at the time, I believe a deletion vote was in order. However, a lot of good improvements have been made, so, at this time, I'd say that this is not an article that should be deleted. Sheepythemouse (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Nepalese films are sometimes difficult to source, but...

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: How Funny Nilu Doma Sherpa Priyanka Karki Keki Adhikari Dayahang Rai Nisha Adhikari Eyecore Filmsl Tiny But Big Pictures

Keep per meeting WP:NF as a source that says it has released and speaks (even if briefly) toward a film project directly and in more-than-trivial detail is exactly what criteria requires. In my own looking, I quickly and easily found representative more:[31][32][33][34][35][36][37] And to the nominator and to Sheepythemouse, I politely remind that notability is based upon sources BEING available and not upon their use in an article. I humbly share the fun of diligence and the India media search tools of WP:INDAFD. Better we work to improve this per what is available, than delete it because it is an ugly stub... IMHO, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @MichaelQSchmidt: I am presuming that your comments are reliant on criteria 2 of WP:NFILM, in which a film is considered notable if it is subject of the 'publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.' Some of the sources you have cited are questionable about whether they are 'reliable' sources however others such as The Kathmandu Post and the onlinekhabar.com review are probably enough to get it over the line. The article itself does need a lot of work to bring it up to acceptable standards. Dan arndt (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response @Dan arndt: Since it's a 2016 film, anyone's expecting sources "5 years after release" is an incorrect argument under WP:N's "Other evidence of notability". That argument "might" be best used AFTER 2021. For this newer film I am relying simply on WP:N's "General principles". While yes, it does need work, its needing work is also not a proper deletion rational. See WP:IMPERFECT, WP:HANDLE, WP:IMPROVE, etc. Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as the listed news links above are still questionable regarding the, at best, substance at making an convincingly better article, if that's all, then there's nothing else better to suggest accepting. Delete at best. SwisterTwister talk 23:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon SwisterTwister, but I've noted many of your delete opinions elsewhere have been proven incorrect. Did you even perform any research prior to offering your "opinions" here? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @MichaelQSchmidt: - I see that you have recently tagged the article as being subject of an expansion or major restructuring. In that regard I would suggest that any decision on this AfD should be held off for a few days until those improvements have been completed. Dan arndt (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What began as a poor stub, has become a decent start class IMHO. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, Schmidt's expansion and sourcing clearly demonstrate notability (I suspect there is a lot more, but difficult to find because of some obvious language barriers). Cavarrone 09:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this AfD should be closed already. Kudos to MichaelQSchmidt for the large improvements made on the article. Unlikely that SwisterTwister will revisit this AfD and change their vote. st170e^talk 13:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Trottier

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

WP:BLP of a screenwriter with no strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE. His only named credits are two films where he was one member of a multi-writer team (and none of his other colleagues on either film has a standalone article yet), and one episode of a television series -- and with one primary source and one reference that covers a tangential fact about the film but entirely fails to even mention his name in conjunction with it, this is based on exactly zero reliable source coverage of him. In addition, it warrants note that the article was created by an SPA whose username ("Pasukaru1978") is a Japanification of the article subject's own first name, thus suggesting a probable conflict of interest. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform where anybody is entitled to start an article about themselves the moment any web page at all can be shown to verify their existence -- RS coverage about him in media, supporting a claim of notability that passes a Wikipedia inclusion criterion, must be present for him to become eligible for inclusion here. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when more substance and better sourcing can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Besides the award in the article, there's also some critical commentary on his work. For example: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. However, there isn't a lot that's specifically about him, like interviews. I don't know if that's enough to establish notability through WP:CREATIVE criterion #3. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am similarly on the fence with this one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I see there is glancing mentions of his name in articles about the film, not all of which are even reliable sources (some are, yes, but a couple of them aren't.) But that's not enough to get a person into Wikipedia in and of itself if genuinely substantive coverage about him is lacking. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as I've found a few several links at News but still nothing actually noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 23:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, of those proffered by NinjaRobotPirate, just one is unreliable. Fine. But the authored reviews of Trottier's work in Los Angeles Times, Bloody-Disgusting, Fangoria, Now Toronto, and Hollywood Reporter are in reliable sources. So sorry SwisterTwister and Bearcat, but in the lack of coverage about him personally, guideline tells us to look at WP:CREATIVE #4-C and thanks to those proffered by NinjaRobotPirate and many others, we may accept a notability through Trottier's work undeniably having "won significant critical attention". It's a suitable stub that will benefit Wikipedia through expansion and growth over time, but not through a deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schmidt's accurate analysis and sources. WP:CREATIVE is met. Cavarrone 08:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

California v. Murray

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

Previously, the article on Conrad Murray himself was redirected away to this page and Conrad Murray again exists pending Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conrad Robert Murray (I've since swapped the pages so the history is with the regular name), I'm not seeing the indication that this trial was actually a notable trial. It was only notable due to its inherited connection with both Death of Michael Jackson and now with the Murray article and I don't think it's more than just a giant unsourced BLP nightmare about the various living people in the case (attorneys, witnesses, Murray). Ricky81682 (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course it was a notable trial, it received a lot of publicity at the time. I don't think being a BLP nightmare is valid grounds for deletion. Allegedly unsourced content should be considered on its merits. Maybe some of the relevant articles could be merged, but that's a different suggestion. PatGallacher (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per great sourcing, case that got national and plenty of international attention. And to try to twist it into something like "the trial is only notable because the "victim" was Michael Jackson", then you are really POV pushing in a weird way.BabbaQ (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources cited in the article substantiate the notability of this case per WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination on 14 June references an AfD closed on 1 May as "pending". Nomination stipulates that there are multiple redirect targets, which means that there is no case for a notability deletion. BLP would be a reason for deletion, but no evidence of a problem is provided, and it appears that the nom allows that any BLP problem can be fixed. Unscintillating (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stanisław Krysicki

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPERSON - being a military officer during WW2 is laudable but unfortunately is not enough for a Wikipedia article. Nor is being mentioned in a single book about former military officers, as NPERSON requires significant coverage in multiple published sources.

See also here: [44] — kashmiri ^TALK 23:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 8 years ago I voted weak delete. Reconsidering other keep arguments, and my understanding of the guidelines today, I'd vote delete, but that said he seems to have been subject to relatively in-depth (several pagraphs or more) coverage in one book and one likely reliable trade magazine/journal (of Polish lawyers), through the latter is probably an obituary. Borderline, but now leaning keep. (And I started writing this content as leaning delete). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of little help in my view: "several paragraphs in one book" falls badly short of significant coverage in multiple published sources required by NPERSON. — kashmiri ^TALK 07:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as there's nothing to suggest there's the availability of substantially better here and my searches have at least found nothing, delete as there's simply nothing minimally convincing and there's certainly not going to be any new information. SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unfortunately I'm not seeing that the requirements for significant coverage are met. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing significant RS coverage, per Google books search results. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Consensus is clearly to Keep per preponderance of sources. Steven Walling • talk 02:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uvula piercing

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

This article has been a target of blatantly non-neutral editing, and its subject in general is rather unnotable. I am Quibilia. (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you summarize the history of the non-neutral edits? Glowimperial (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've found two instances with a quick skim of the page history: 670987270 and 704163467, both under the "History and culture" section. I am Quibilia. (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, well referenced article. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG specifies that the article should also follow WP:NOT, especially WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I would like to point out a nearby section, WP:NOTNEWS: Half of the sources in this article are news or similar sources, typically considered unreliable (see WP:NEXIST: Simply because an article makes good use of sources does not indicate the notability of those sources). I concede, however, that the article does appear to follow the general guidelines for WP:GNG, and am reconsidering my stance on its deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quibilia (talk • contribs) 16:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quibilia, I accept what you are saying above, i was going to suggest a redirect/merge but on having a look at other piercing articles was unsure where it could be directed to. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - but only because there's a little bit of content worth saving here and no reasonable target to merge to. If there were a merge target, I would definitely not be arguing to keep. I would recommend someone create Draft:Oral piercing as it looks like we have several articles that could be combined: labret, lip piercing, philtrum piercing, jestrum piercing, lip frenulum piercing, tongue frenulum piercing, tongue piercing, cheek piercing, monroe piercing.... Some, like tongue and lip, can probably sustain their own articles, too, but I note that there are a whole lot of sources which combine these as "oral piercing", including many high quality medical/dental sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not seeing solid grounds for deletion. Artw (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allegheny Image Factory

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

Producer of a few non notable films -- some of the titles seemed somewhat reminiscent of actual notable films, but checking IMdB,they actually aren't. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is another case of speedy material but I was removed and it should have at least been considered as another form of deletion. There's nothing here at all for any basic minimal notability and certainly not inheritly notable. SwisterTwister talk 02:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:CORP. Yes they are associated with a number of films, and some of these films have coverage enough so some new articles on them might be worth consideration... but while some better sources exist for the company, it really has not made a mark worthy of WP:N. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable per WP:CORP. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Surgical Consortium

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

No evidence that it has ever done anything. Part of an apparent promotional campaign for the various activities of Kelly McQueen DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete this article, at least in its current form, per WP:G11. --Dps04 (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is another case where I speedied it but it was removed with no attempts at all at reconsideration, examining this shows no signs at all for any anything convincingly and applicably notable. SwisterTwister talk 22:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MaestroVision

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

Nonnotable and promotional. The only usable reference is the first, and it seems to be in the style of an extended press release DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself tagged it for deletion but it was removed with no other attempts of reconsideration, I examined everything before and there was simply nothing for any applicable notability, nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you repeat your boilerplate deletion statement, I know its time to look further. LOL Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

~~KEEP~~ Comment French-language sources look available to meet WP:CORP. Le Devoir and Laval cite the article alongside Creative Cow... and the Le Devoir source is quite substantive. Why not simply tag it for tone and let issues be addressed through regular editing? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- At best it's very weak that the (only) three major newspapers in the Montreal, Quebec area have chosen to give this only routine coverage. Striking my keep Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Le Devoir ref is a great find: though small circulation, it's considered Quebec's journal of record (though its politics are a joke, imho). That Laval ref would be primary, though. It's the city of Laval (just north of Montreal) announcing a contract with them. So while it's great for WP:V it wouldn't help with WP:N. User:Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn, In my digging, I also found authored articles in French Quebec's L'Écho de Laval (1), L'Écho de Laval (2), Courrier Laval, and ~~another in Le Devoir... enough so that I feel WP:CORP is met and am comfortable changing my "comment" above to a keep. Needs work, not deletion.~~ Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, your "other" Le Devoir piece is the same article. And that, I should add, is in the paper's Education section, not business, and appears to be pushing the importance of Concordia University's MBA program and reads more like an advertorial piece. The Creative Cow blog's just a mere mention. And then there are the Laval weeklies, all reporting the same thing, which is the company's ultimately successful bid to webcast city council meetings. For what little it's worth, I've never heard of this company, which appears to be a fairly minor player in Quebec's audiovisual sector. More importantly, based on the news sources I don't think it truly does meet WP:CORP. Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the dup.. it was unintentional. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

[1] "EN: I'm Not Competing With Kiss Daniel - SugarBoy". Channels TV. Retrieved 27 April 2016.

[2] "SUGARBOY DAZZLES ON STAGE AT KISS DANIEL'S NEW ERA ALBUM LAUNCH". KLICK Promotions. Retrieved 23 May 2016.

[3] "Industry Nite With Modenine". tooXclusive. Retrieved 5 April 2013.

[4] "Check out Sugar Boy freestyle on the Official Naija Top Ten". MTV Base. Retrieved 30 March 2016.

[5] ttp://www.france24.com/ar/20151111-تكنولوجيا-لبنان-الطفل-جايك-المير-الهواتف-الذكية-تطبيقات-آبل-سرعة-سلامة-سيارات?ns_campaign=reseaux_sociaux&ns_source=FB&ns_mchannel=social&ns_linkname=editorial&aef_campaign_ref=partage_user&aef_campaign_date=2015-11-11

[6] ttp://www.france24.com/ar/20151111-تكنولوجيا-لبنان-الطفل-جايك-المير-الهواتف-الذكية-تطبيقات-آبل-سرعة-سلامة-سيارات?ns_campaign=reseaux_sociaux&ns_source=FB&ns_mchannel=social&ns_linkname=editorial&aef_campaign_ref=partage_user&aef_campaign_date=2015-11-11

[7] "Arvind Kejriwal's AAP enters Kerala, wins ward seat". intoday.in.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[1]