Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 June	18 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Hicham Bensassi[edit]

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

The result was History-merged to Ben River. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A page called Ben River currently exists on wikipedia and used to be the page that redirected to this page, the main page for this person should be Ben River with the title Ben River and this page should be deleted and the Ben River page should be kept online on Wikipedia as this is the page of this artist/person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newdjango81 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The content of this article appears to have moved to Ben River. If that is the correct name, then WP:RM should be used. St Anselm (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ben River is a blatant attempt at a copy-paste move. It's case for WP:RM and a possible history merge. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:52, 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 03:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arsen Panosyan[edit]

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

Can't find any sources in English which establishes that the subject passes GNG. The sources provided are only in Armenian and a quick internet search turns up little results on the subject. Fails WP:GNG Class455fan1 (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There isn't much at all in English, but he's listed as a "Famous Master" with a little cross-confirmation of other sources in this UNESCO nomination. The article states he won the Khorenatsi medal in 2004 (Armenia's highest cultural honour) and the Armenian wiki that he won international awards including in the USSR -- both of which crossreference with this. There's evidence here, here, here and possibly here of apparently independent coverage of him and/or his work. He passes ANYBIO/ARTIST, however the article needs to be properly referenced with sources, and if available these are likely to be in Armenian or possibly Russian, and may be offline. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case that no english sources are available, then this article would be better placed on the Armenian Wikipedia, not here. Also, some of the sources you have provided (YouTube and OK.ru) may not be reliable sources. See WP:YOUTUBE. Class455fan1 (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no, if the subject is notable, then an article can be on the English wikipedia, see WP:GNG - "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." and WP:NOENG - "Citations to non-English sources are allowed on English Wikipedia.". Coolabahapple (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Hydronium Hydroxide. Sources don't have to be in the English language. Waggers TALK 12:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One thing I sometimes do for artists to get a rough feel for their notability is to check what the Google image results are for their name + artist (e.g. Arsen Panosyan artist). Interestingly, basically nothing comes up for this artist beyond a few still images from the Youtube pages, four wikiepdia-hosted images and a few blogspot-hosted images. Setting aside language, I think it might be correct to be dubious of this artist's notability, as even in another language I do not see much. The Youtube and wiki links given above are irrelevant for obvious reliability reasons. The Unesco document is also not valuable as a reference since government assessment work is often governed by other criteria such as balancing assessment commmittee members by location, ethnicity, gender etc. So the Unesco document is not a stamp of approval and is not intended as such. Beyond that I am not seeing much.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole reason why I nominated this for deletion. There is no significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Still fails GNG. Class455fan1 (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead as he may be known locally but there are also no collections so that's something missing for the notability, then there's also the number of sources which is simply not enough to support this article. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources identified here indicate sufficient notability. --Michig (talk) 07:24, 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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True to Desire[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a cable public access television series. Something like this might merit a Wikipedia article if it could be reliably sourced over WP:GNG, but WP:NMEDIA does not confer automatic notability on every local television series that's claimed but not sourced as merely having existed. Also conflict of interest, as the creator's username corresponds to one of the cast members. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no obvious independent coverage. Blythwood (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing minimally suggesting any basic signs of both an improved and notable article, delete until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 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 delete. Sandstein 11:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fullerverse[edit]

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

Original research attempt to create a Tommy Westphall thing, based solely on very superficial recurrences of minor characters, coincidental recurrence of shared names among characters intended as different people, and brand names of products not central to the plot in any way, across more than one of Bryan Fuller's television series. Something like this might merit a Wikipedia article if it could be sourced over WP:GNG as a thing that real reliable sources actually discussed, but the sourcing here is based entirely on Tumblrs, tweets, individual episode recaps and listicles on pop culture fora and casting announcements that don't have the word "Fullerverse" in them. That's simply not the kind of sourcing it takes to make something like this an appropriate article topic. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of this has been original research "to create a Tommy Westphall thing". Beth Grant's character is intended as, and credited as, the SAME character throughout Wonderfalls, Pushing Daisies and Mockingbird Lane. In her two appearances in Wonderfalls and her one appearance in Hannibal, Chelan Simmons character Gretchen Speck-Horowitz (known simply as "Gretchen Speck" in Hannibal after her divorce in Wonderfalls) claims to have "lost the hyphen, kept the ring.". These characters are clearly NOT intended to be different people, meaning these shows esist in a shared universe. Also, it is not ENTIRELY based on Tumblrs & Tweets. There are also links to the Fullerverse Website. [1][2] Keep. TotalTruthTeller24 (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2016 (ROI)

One example of a repeated character name that is intended, according to this very article, to be a different person is "Katherine Pimms", so I'm in no way making stuff up with that — and the characters who did cross over from one show to another as the same person are minor ones, not main characters, so there's clearly nothing significant about the crossovers as a thing in their own right. None of this constitutes a compelling reason why this would merit coverage in an encyclopedia as a thing. As well, fullerverse.com is not a reliable source for content like this, as it's not a media outlet but rather a self-published fansite created by a theorizer — and I didn't say the sourcing here was based solely on Tumblrs and tweets, I said it was based on Tumblrs, tweets and several additional kinds of sources. But all of the sources here, regardless of their type, fail WP:RS for one reason or another. Simply put, you've either misinterpreted or misrepresented every single thing I actually said. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or just redirect to Bryan Fuller, which already has a section called "Fullerverse" that basically already has this same info. Most of the information is fairly trivial and WP:FANCRUFT, hardly warranting a standalone article for the subject. Most of the "crossovers" between the shows are fairly minor and more of a "wink" to fans. It's not like it's the Marvel Cinematic Universe or something. I'd also like to point out that this same user created Template:Fullerverse which is fairly redundant of Template:Bryan Fuller, and should also be deleted. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This "shared universe" is incredibly minor to non-existant – this is coming from a longtime Fuller fan. The template isn't even done to the same standards as templates; article isn't done to the standard of articles. Cartoon Boy (talk) 1:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Just did a read-through and the "Connections" section, basically identical to the "Fullerverse" section on the Fuller article... Cartoon Boy (talk) 1:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Template should also be deleted. Cartoon Boy (talk) 1:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete as I'm still not seeing the solidity and depth for its own notable article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 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 speedy delete. G11 DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Relocation Systems, Inc.[edit]

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

All the references are either own web-site, directory listings or advertisements. Nothing here is a reliable independent source demonstrating notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no advertisements in the references. There are some references to the homepage, but also to some entirely independent pages, such as the article from the "San Diego Business Journal," another article from the "Phoenix Business Journal" or the the FMCSA company detail page. This article's subject does meet the requirements for notability. Check reference #s 1, 11, 19 and 32 if you'd like to see for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogbrewer (talk • contribs) 22:18, Ogbrewer (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, overtly promotional article of at best dubious notability. Even if usable sources were to be presented - the closest the current article comes is this, which has all the hallmarks of a barely-edited press release reprint, and the bare handful of sources I could find are all of similar or worse quality (typical example)- the article should deleted and rewritten from those. And if the 9! nearly-identical copies of this fatuously cited as references don't qualify as advertisements, I can't imagine what does. —Cryptic 23:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cryptic.142.105.159.60 (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, No advertisements are in the references. In case you don't know, an advertisement is an announcement, message, or listing that is paid for. None of the references were paid for. Those 9 copies are the directory pages for the different branches. If you read the article you will see that the company has nine branches. They are nearly identical because they are reference pages for each branch of the same company. Also, the article you refer to as a having "all the hallmarks of a barely-edited press release reprint" is an article from the Phoenix Business Journal. If you would like to contest their legitimacy, take it up with them. Ace is a multimillion dollar company with 9 branches nationwide and meets the requirements for being considered notable.Ogbrewer (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a business directory. I see nothing notable here. The company exists, as do tens or hundreds of thousands of others. Significant independent coverage is required but not found here. MB (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just because the author has a different concept of an advertisement than Wikipedia does doesn't make this article notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:CORP which requires multiple instances of "deep coverage" in notable independent sources. Is there even one in-depth article on this entity in the San Diego Union-Tribune even (let alone a the LA Times or whatever)? Can't find one. As to the subject of promotion... it seems that the only editor likely to be involved in maintaining this article is Ogbrewer, and so I'd like to ask a question of Ogbrewer: if a scandal involving this organization were to make the papers, would you be eager to rush over here and add it to the article? I didn't think so. It's never going to offer balanced reporting. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Fails WP:CORP and very WP:SPAMmy. ukexpat (talk) 14:52, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bower (software)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of independent coverage. Blythwood (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've frankly PRODed as there's still easily nothing for the applicable notability here, nothing to suggest otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Zofrea[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability guideline for biographies. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO as Zofrea has won Sir John Sulman Prize three times, and was a finalist for the Archibald Prize. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Below is a selection of some of the available articles focusing on him and his work.

"From psalms to flowers, art means life", Manly Daily, 10 June 2014 - A qoute: "Now prominent and prolific artist Salvatore Zofrea has been awarded the Medal of Order of Australia for his services to art."

Morton, Rick (19 April 2014), "Putting leadlight back in the limelight", The Australian

Burke, Kelly (6 April 2012), "An artist, a saint's spirit and a vision splendid", The Sydney Morning Herald

Meacham, Steve (7 November 2011), "Late flowering of a bold master", The Sydney Morning Herald

Proudfoot, Cassie (11 June 2001), "A Migrant's Story Carved Into Compelling Images", Canberra Times

Genocchio, Benjamin (1 April 2000), "Woodcutting edge", The Australian

Stowell, Jill (15 April 2006), "Faces in the mob", The Newcastle Herald

MacPherson, Deirdre (10 March 1990), "Portrait of a simple man", The Sydney Morning Herald

Sources above span over 25 years and come from mainstream Australian newspapers with broad audiences. Others can be found with a simple google search Salvatore Zofrea aims for art prize trifecta Salvatore Zofrea’s homage to his father at Windsor Library Migration celebrated in Australian artist Zofrea's new work. Note that 2014 is not the only time he was a finalist for an Archibald. See also [3]. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found two museum collections (e.g. this) in a couple of minutes of searching. Two museum collections meets point four of WP:ARTIST.HappyValleyEditor (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 Merge. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LCBO Agency[edit]

A stub about one type of store of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario chain. Can and should be section in the main article. Delete/Merge. Owen× ☎ 19:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Owen. Yes, I placed a merge tag on it and the article creator answered thusly, perhaps not quite aware of how consensus works here. And the comment about adding content on "unique RFID products available only at LCBO Agency stores witch will definitely warrant its' own piece" leaves me more puzzled as to what he or she has in mind. But when I see something like that, it reinforces my feeling that we can easily add to the main article how LCBO agency stores have existed since 1962. Support Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A Google search for LCBO and RFID reveals little, btw, except that perhaps that outlets have been looking to introduce improvements in supply management, or something. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LCBO. - SimonP (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Liquor Control Board of Ontario (as tagged on 8 June 2016, diff, diff), which presently has no mention of this; WP:PRESERVE appropriate content in the encyclopedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 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.. Michig (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Militia[edit]

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

Non notable game by non notable company which fails WP:PRODUCT Theroadislong (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only non-notable game, but non-neutral article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG, WP:NPOV. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dcirovic (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable game. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:13, 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 delete. Only been deleted once before so I'm not sure salting is warranted, but drop me a line if you disagree. Jenks24 (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impact Engine[edit]

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

Repeatedly deleted in previous versions. promotional and non-notable. All the references come from its home city, and therefore can be assumed to be indiscriminate, in the sense that local business publications will write promotional articles on every local business. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional. for (;;) (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually involved in the original version when it was speedy deleted under G11 and G12. The user who created the page (who I will not name for operational reasons) was actually using a promotional username to promote this company. The user tried to contest the speedy delete but it still went ahead because it was promotional. Unfortunately for this matter, I'll have to go with a delete, notwithstanding the fact that there have been references in the article. If it is repeatedly recreated, I'll have to consider requesting salt protection for the title. Hx7 18:25, 24 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 an extremely negative POV BLP. Non admin closure. Safiel (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mukim Kala[edit]

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

Very borderline for deletion under CSD G10. Subject is evidently NOT yet a convicted criminal. Even if notability is established, it would be entirely prudent to nuke the existing article completely and start over from the beginning in an unbiased manner. The IP recently registered account that started this article wrote it more as a manifesto against the subject than as an encyclopedia article. Safiel (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete It is a G10 Attack Page. Tagged. Jbh ^Talk 18:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete attack page.. not convicted yet..though notable, it looks like a goon profile, not encyclopedic.. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 18:35, 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) 10:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Z-M Weapons[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP Niteshift36 (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per nom. Barely any coverage at all. Only a few of mentions in reliable book sources, all of which were in passing, and mainly in relation to the LR-300. The Armed Forces Journal has printed more extensive information about the company (i.e. [4]), but I'm unable to view it to see how detailed it gets, and I'm personally unfamiliar with the source.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The mentions appear to be just that, mentions. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is unsourced, so a WP:V deletion would be policy based. However, WP:BEFORE IMO shows that the nomination as it stands is not sound policy. The issues don't seem to yield to quick analysis by content non-experts. Unscintillating (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that I didn't do any BEFORE or that I don't know what I'm looking at?Niteshift36 (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said anything about you. Please see WP:AVOIDYOU. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made the nomination. So if there is an issue with the nomination, it's my action. So what IS your issue with the nomination? And what issues do you feel require more expertise? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about your actions. WP:AVOIDYOU says to talk about the contribution, not the contributor. I provided a policy basis for the nomination that was not in the nomination. I've added the word "IMO" to my original comment, if that helps. The point of my comment was to invite a deeper look at the issues involved here. Do you want to develop with me a step-by-step detailed WP:BEFORE analysis? Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources" is the notability guideline that I based the nomination on. I also pointed out that the company doesn't appear to pass the notability guidelines of CORP. I don't need any help with BEFORE and I'm not sure I see a need for a step-by-step guide. But thanks for the offer. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, disregard. In looking at your other AfD "contributions", you seem to mention BEFORE everywhere, and leave other editors as confused as I am about what you actually mean. Disregard my request to clarify. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing noticeably better either and the overall sight here seems to suggest there's simply not the needed solidity, which is not surprising considering it's local and nothing else to suggest it would be better known. I would've frankly PRODed. SwisterTwister talk 20:05, 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 Speedy keep. This is the second nomination within a matter of hours (the previous was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Jo Cox), the first was closed as speedy keep and this nomination is not going to result in a different outcome with nobody other than the nominator advancing an opinion in favour of deletion. This is without prejudice to a third nomination (if desired) when things have settled down and more facts are known and different arguments can be advanced. Speaking now in my capacity as an editor not closing administrator, I'd suggest a renomination sooner than about a week's time will be liable to be speedily kept again, unless there is very significant new information. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Jo Cox[edit]

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

This is explicitly not about the notability of the event (if you take a look at the ITNC nomination, you'll see quite clearly that I was heavily involved in getting the story onto the main page in a timely manner. I am nominating this specific article as the only content which should be in here would be insufficient to justify a stand-alone article. The parts about the event itself, beyond the very basics, are unambiguous and irreconcilable breaches of WP:BLPCRIME (the basics should be – and are – in the victim's article anyway). The reaction parts are totally out of proportion to the scale of the remainder of what can tenably be kept in the article itself, and to be honest the subject's article does a far better job in this aspect as well. What the reaction section needs to do is give a representative flavour of the tone and stature of the people who are reacting to the event – Cox's article does this perfectly well.

No prejudice to recreation after a conviction, at which point a stand-alone article may be able to stand on its own two feet. But right now this article is absolutely incapable of being anything other than a BLP-breaker, and/or a total overlap of what either is, or absolutely should be, in the parent article. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Another AfD was closed as SNOW keep a matter of HOURS ago. Request urgent closure and trouting of nom per WP:SKCRIT "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion". Shameful. AusLondonder (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is this other nomination? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Checking the talk page helps. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Jo Cox Ribbet32 (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - It didn't even occur to me that someone would be nonchalant enough about BLP policy to call a page "murder" and name the suspect within hours of the event. Nonetheless. And at no point was BLPCRIME discussed in the nomination. I know people tend not to give a damn about BLP when they don't like it, but that's no reason to simultaneously personally attack me and claim it was previously discussed. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of crap. The suspect has been widely named in the quality media worldwide and in the UK. Additionally you better call the Police on Jeremy Corbyn he called it "murder". Furthermore BLPCRIME was discussed in the nom a few hours ago. AusLondonder (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Corbyn is not (to my knowledge) a Wikipedia editor. Regrettably, you are. Though not a particularly honest one if you are seriously arguing that BLPCRIME was discussed in that nomination. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So (your interpretation of) the law only applies on Wikipedia not in the real world? BLPCRIME was raised. AusLondonder (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where it is possible to possibly break a law whilst abiding by Wikipedia policy, that is at the user's risk. I certainly wouldn't encourage it. On the other hand editors cannot choose whether to abide by Wikipedia's content policy. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per above. Trout slap nominator. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a young Wikipedian, I'd recommend keeping this article until more information about her tragic death is known, as after all known factual information is added and false information removed, we can work on improving this article to meet wikipedia's standards. This is an emotional issue and there will be edit wars and content that violates Wikipedia's guidelines, but in a few weeks they should have reduced and we can work on improving the article. Therefore I vote keep, as a separate article would allow the heated discussion not to overlap onto other parts of the Jo Cox article.

Keep until more information available

David Greener (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Any information that becomes available prior to conviction would presumably either belong in the Jo Cox article or breach WP:BLPCRIME. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just clarify. Is this a joke? Are you saying for example we would have had to wait for the conviction of Anders Behring Brevik before starting the 2011 Norway attacks article? AusLondonder (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was an attack on a large number of people without a Wikipedia article to cover the matter. Very different from this situation. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So if a "large number" of victims are involved your interpretation of BLPCRIME changes? AusLondonder (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone with a modicum of willingness to read step in here? This event is notable – I was explicit about the fact that I was nominating for deletion based on something other than notability. However there is somewhere to cover it adequately without distorting the article: Jo Cox. That Norway event was also notable, and there was nowhere to cover it, hence a new article was created.

As for the relationship between that part of my argument and WP:BLPCRIME: BLPCRIME applies to Jo Cox equally as it does to this article. My point is that to go beyond the scope of what should be and is currently in the Jo Cox article, we would inevitably breach WP:BLPCRIME, therefore it is senseless to have the second article. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although I am very uncomfortable with articles about matters that have yet to come to trial (because for one thing the full facts cannot be established) there is no doubt this has received international media coverage far beyond the norm. This is Paul (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @This is Paul: At what point in the nom did I suggest this was about notability? I said that the WP:BLPCRIME issues could not be resolved. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You haven't, but one cannot ignore the level of media coverage. I do, however, understand your concerns (i.e., that we know very little beyond the basic facts which may not justify a standalone article), and suggest it may have been more appropriate to open a merger discussion. This is Paul (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nope. Opening a merge proposal hours after an article was SNOW KEPT is highly disruptive and an obvious abuse of process. AusLondonder (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't know that since I nominate very few articles for deletion, so perhaps not such good advice after all. All we can do then is keep an eye on the article as it expands. One thing we haven't covered yet is the debate this has opened about the security of public figures. This is Paul (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for engaging in good faith in the debate Paul, even though I disagree with your conclusion on what should be done with the article. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the previous AfD was a snow keep and closed only hours ago. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can the nominator please elaborate on why he/she believes that the content in this article violates WP:BLPCRIME? Neutrality^talk 18:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy states: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Generally, a conviction is secured through court or magisterial proceedings. Allegations, accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement are not a conviction. WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN."
  The known facts surrounding the nature of Cox's death (that she was shot and stabbed in close proximity to a scheduled constituency surgery) are covered in Cox's article, as is the fact that a 52-year-old has been arrested. I'm not sure what else can be put into either article at this point which would not breach BLPCRIME? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking at the page, I see no accusation from Wikipedia. That would indeed be improper. But nothing in WP:BLPCRIME, in my reading, prohibits us from naming an individual who has been arrested but not convicted, so long as high-quality reliable sources are reporting it, we give due weight within the scope of the article, and we frame the content in the appropriate manner (i.e., we recount what police or witnesses have said as reported by reliable third parties, and we don't ourselves in our own voice accuse the person). For example, it would violate BLPCRIME to identify an unconvicted person as "the perpetrator," or to state "they did it." But there is nothing wrong with identifying such a person as "the suspect" or "the arrested man." Indeed, that is what every British and American newspaper is now doing.

I heartily agree that, when it comes to crime, special caution and careful wording is required. I disagree, however, that such caution and care always requires outright exclusion of widely-reported information. I especially am alarmed at the suggestion that we should withhold such information for months or years on end pending trial. That is often not required by law or Wikipedia policy and would not serve our readers well. Neutrality^talk 18:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot call someone a suspect of a crime without suggesting that they committed a crime. Merely being a suspect is an accusation of potential wrongdoing, and we shouldn't be including this information on BLP grounds. The Suspect and Investigation sections don't belong until after a conviction is secured. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - - That argument might hold, if the article were aimed at being covered in a NPOV, letting the facts speak for themselves way. Looking at the RM discussion on the talk page, it seems pretty unambiguous that there is no intention whatsoever of doing so (the page was called "murder" before and there seems to be consensus in the direction of "murder" or "assassination" now). I would also make the point that many of the editors ignoring BLPCRIME there are avoiding engaging in the discussion here (claiming that this matter has been discussed). I would further make the point that most of the more policy-conscious editors in this field are editing the subject's article. Now, I chose not to post a notification anywhere other than where was absolutely required for fear of being accused of notifying non-neutrally, therefore to my knowledge none has been posted to the talk page of Jo Cox. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy close of this AfD as redundant to a few hours ago. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is disputing the notability of the event. The discussion a few hours ago did not clarify whether this article could exist without being trimmed to a meangless fork or breaching BLPCRIME. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Stand-alone notability is given per the last WP:AfD just hours ago. The alleged breaches of WP:BLPCRIME weren't substantiated at all, and things like the use of the terms "assassination" or "murder" may be further discussed on the Talk page. --PanchoS (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So, what is not at Jo Cox (or is there, does not breach WP:BLPCRIME, but should not be there due to undue weight), that is or should covered here? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've been through this once and the concensus was keep. Why are we going through it again?????? Davethorp (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the nominations and explain how this is the same as the previous one? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please look at the comments from other wikipedians. If anything there is an even stronger concensus to keep from your "nomination" Davethorp (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are only two people who have evaluated the issues raised. One of whom has yet to declare, the other of whom has !voted keep but has agreed there are BLPCRIME violations. Or have we become a democracy since I was last here? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Couldn't say if we are a democracy or not but 7 votes to 1 in favour of keep appears to be strong concensus to me and far stronger than on the last AFD discussion. I cannot see anything in the article that suggests the suspect has committed a specific crime and even if there is the solution is to amend the article so it complies with BLPCRIME. Not go nuclear on an article that already has strong concensus for remaining on both the AFDs it has been subjected to today Davethorp (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Make that 8-1 Davethorp (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are a number of aspects on this incident that will likely still emerge and serve to expand it to being beyond what the victim's biography alone can carry. Particularly, there are the political implications and affect on the EU referendum; that this involved a firearm, very rare in British life; and the outcome in the local constituency. Radagast (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect you for focussing on the merits nomination itself, even though I disagree with your conclusion. The point I'd make about the EU referendum is that a comment about the campaign suspension would already be justified in the main article (and is already present at Jo Cox. If this has a wider impact than a break in the two sides tearing lumps out of each other, that too would justify further coverage on the main referendum page. But you raise a valid point, and I respect it. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 19:47, 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paessler (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Anton555a (creator, SPA) with no rationale. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Last year this was AfD by User:DGG, but kept (I was not pinged, and I missed that AfD). Unfortunately, the sources presented there do not seem to be very helpful. User:CorporateM provided to links to Networked World - but they are not about company, but its products (and notability is not inherited). User:TYelliot provided another product review irrelevant here ([5]), and one on-topic ref ([6]), but it is mostly a listing of the company's products; the "in-depth" coverage of the company itself is 2 paragraphs, including a sentence "the company is not one of the bigger names in network monitor applications." The other ref added by the creator is [7], and it reads like a press release, complete with 50% of the content being a lenghty quote from company's CEO. I don't see what would make us keep this entry here; it is just a minor business with no reasons for being encyclopedic. Please keep in mind encyclopedia is not a business directory. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Network World material is essentially a press release, at least as I read it, , where he president of the company is allowed to say whatever he wants to say, without analysis. Unfortunately, even well known trade magazines do that--there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it--they make a convenient source for people looking for information who just need to know what the producer says about it. But that doesn't make them a RS for anything but the incontestable facts, and it certainly doesn't make them a RS for notability. DGG ( talk ) 15:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This in-depth competitive review cannot credibly be compared to a press release repost. The article specifically says that the editor obtained the product itself and tested it in a lab environment. It includes a description of their testing methodology. The source is almost 7,000 words long. For technology, to get a copy of the tech itself and have experts from a credible publication test it in a lab environment - this the most reliable form of independent fact-checking available and is far superior to most press sources that are just repeating what they were told by bias parties. CorporateM (Talk) 19:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:CorporateM: I do not dispute it is a reliable source. For the product of that company. It does not discuss the company itself. Can you see the difference? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was just addressing that specific point. CorporateM (Talk) 14:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a tricky one as there doesn't seem to be much coverage of the company around, but its main product appears to be notable. It might be best to refactor it to be about PRTG Network Monitor (or merge with an undeleted version of that article), for which independent sources exist (although they're not the most convincing): [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. --Michig (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am the founder and CEO of Paessler. May I bring up some facts so the people here can make a decision about the notability/deletion/rewrite based on facts, not assumptions. Paessler is the vendor of the PRTG Network Monitor product that 150.000 customers all over the world use 24/7 every day. Gartner recently listed Paessler in its Magic Quandrant for "Network Performance Monitoring and Diagnostics" https://www.paessler.com/blog/2016/04/20/monitoring-news/prtg-included-in-the-gartner-magic-quadrant. Just last week German IT magazine Funkschau wrote in a lab-based review: "Over the years Paessler has succeeded in setting the standard for IT monitoring" ("Mit den Jahren ist es dem Nürnberger Unternehmen Paessler gelungen, den Standard für IT-Monitoring zu setzen.", Article is not yet available online). Paessler has 160 employees and was awarded with the "great place to work award for best employer" twice (#21 in Germany) http://www.greatplacetowork.de/beste-arbeitgeber/landes-und-regionalwettbewerbe/1284 and the Deloitte Technology Fast 50 award http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/de/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/TMT-Fast50-Gewinner-Technology-Fast50-2014.pdf. The Spiceworks community has rated PRTG as "preferred by IT Pros" https://community.spiceworks.com/reviews/15779-paessler-prtg-network-monitor. Paessler and PRTG were awarded multiple awards by Network Computing https://www.paessler.com/blog/network-computing-awards-2016. Local newspaper report about Paessler http://www.nordbayern.de/region/nuernberg/software-fur-einsatz-in-antarktis-und-industrie-1.3988406?searched=true. Maybe this helps DirkPaessler (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User:DirkPaessler - thank you for the sources (and disclosing the WP:COI). Since I appreciate you respecting our discussion enough to participate in it yourself, with a said disclosure and sources, which is very rare (usually we deal with anonymous for-hire PR hacks who don't bother to talk back at all, just go on to create another problematic entry under another anonymous throw-away account), let me address your points one by one (I've spent about half an hour reviewing your sources and writing the following):
  - "Paessler is the vendor of the PRTG Network Monitor product that 150.000 customers all over the world use 24/7 every day." There has never been a consensus as to factors such as volume of sales, number of employees, or such when it comes to establish notability of the company (mostly because there are no reliable benchmarks for most industries).
  - "Gartner recently listed Paessler in its Magic Quandrant for "Network Performance Monitoring and Diagnostics" https://www.paessler.com/blog/2016/04/20/monitoring-news/prtg-included-in-the-gartner-magic-quadrant" Setting aside the fact that the source is your own blog, so WP:SELFPUBLISHED, there is no consensus on what awards make a company notable (again, there are hundrend of thousands of minor awards around the world, and Gartner's Magic Quandrant award is not a household name). In such cases we default to WP:GNG, which roughly asks: did the fact that Foo-award was presented to Boo-entity generated any independent coverage? Which doesn't seem to be the case here (in other words, unless a reliable source comments on the fact that Paessler received "Gartner's Magic Quandrant" award or mention, it doesn't help us in establishing notability.
  - "Just last week German IT magazine Funkschau wrote in a lab-based review: "Over the years Paessler has succeeded in setting the standard for IT monitoring" ("Mit den Jahren ist es dem Nürnberger Unternehmen Paessler gelungen, den Standard für IT-Monitoring zu setzen.", Article is not yet available online)." We would need a proper citation (offline sources are ok). Then we should discuss whether Funkschau magazine is a reliable source, and check the article for whether the coverage is in-depth. If all they wrote about your company is one sentence, well, it seems just like the case with the Networked World article about one of your products I discuss above: it may be a good source for an article about your product, but does not help in establishing notability of your company (please also see why notability cannot be inherited between entities, such as father and son, or company and its product).
  - "Paessler has 160 employees" - as I mentioned, size is irrelevant. Is 160 a lot of a few? How are we supposed to know?
  - "Paessler... was awarded with the "great place to work award for best employer" twice (#21 in Germany) http://www.greatplacetowork.de/beste-arbeitgeber/landes-und-regionalwettbewerbe/1284 and the Deloitte Technology Fast 50 award http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/de/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/TMT-Fast50-Gewinner-Technology-Fast50-2014.pdf." See comment above about whether award or mention attracted attention of independent sources. The sources you give come from the organizations presenting an award, so they fail at WP:PRIMARY (again: someone besides the giver and the recipient has to care).
  - " The Spiceworks community has rated PRTG as "preferred by IT Pros" https://community.spiceworks.com/reviews/15779-paessler-prtg-network-monitor." Just like above.
  - "Paessler and PRTG were awarded multiple awards by Network Computing https://www.paessler.com/blog/network-computing-awards-2016". Ditto.
  - "Local newspaper report about Paessler http://www.nordbayern.de/region/nuernberg/software-fur-einsatz-in-antarktis-und-industrie-1.3988406?searched=true." There is no consensus on whether strictly local reporting suffices for what is an international encyclopedia, but it also means it is not discarded without a review, which unfortunately I cannot do as I do not speak German. I will say that it does not appear that Nordbayern has an entry on English or German wikis, which suggests it is a very minor outlet. If a German speaker can comment on whether this report is in-depth about Paessler the company, and not just about a product (like other sources provided so far), and on source reliability, this could constitute the best source we have seen here so far (IMHO). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as my searches simply found nothing better than a few links, certainly nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CTL Global Solutions[edit]

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

no evidence for notability. the awards are trivial: it's time we stopped paying attention to such meaningless PR as "best place to work"--most of them seem to rotate from year to year among various important businesses and are awarded for trivial employee facilities. DGG ( talk ) 15:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing at all minimally convincing here for any notability, no actual claims of solidity, and I would've frankly explored speedy which is what happens to these articles....until the speedy tag is removed. Notifying tagger Melcous. SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, the references given are either associated with the company or for awards that are not notable. Doesn't meet primary criteria of WP:CORP. Melcous (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - verges on WP:ADMASK. Waggers TALK 12:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable company and article appears to be promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:16, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copper loss[edit]

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

I considered boldly redirecting, but I am not entirely sure this should not be outright deleted; moreover there are multiple potential targets (I also considered redirecting and bringing it to WP:RFD).

Most of the content is duplicate of Joule heating as it seems this is just the application of JH to transformers. The only ref is a WP clone (articleworld).

I could find some mentions of the term online, though not much, in the context of transformers, in which case redirecting to Transformer#Energy_losses would be adequate. If the term exists in a larger context, Joule_heating#Power_loss_and_noise is a more suitable target. Finally, there is also Magnetic_core#Core_loss (to which Iron loss currently redirects).

In any case, I am not convinced this deserves a standalone article.

~~For the same reason of content organization, I will leave a note at WP:RFD, and I nominate the following redirect:~~

~~Iron loss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At second thought, the bundling looks like a poor idea, considering the number of incoming links to iron loss. So I withdraw that, let us discuss on separate pages. I recommend redirection to Transformer#Energy_losses. RFD discussion here. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'd probably be fine, there are only 5 article mainspace links, most of the rest are user/user talk pages Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Transformer#Energy_losses, subsection "Winding joule losses" or Keep. It does not relate to Iron loss as that is about the losses in the core material, not the windings. The transformer article can use the content as the Core losses section also has the formula to calculate the loss. DeVerm (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I agree with others that this is a notable subject and should have it's own article on Wikipedia; the current article however is not that and would fit better merged like I showed above. When editors expand the article then we have the content that is needed to simply keep it. It seems we're caught somewhere in the middle and this also means that I have no strong preference of merge over keep. I have therefor added keep to my !vote so that the closing admin can use my vote for either but not for delete or redirect. DeVerm (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Transformer#Energy_losses, subsection "Winding joule losses". This article is just about the resistive power loss in the windings, typically made of copper. There isn't a great deal to say about it, and it is best discussed in the context of other transformer losses. --Mark viking (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Update Using Glrx's explanation below, I was able to find a number of sources taking about the proximity effect, skin effect and winding strategies in the context of copper loss. It has convinced me that this topic can be developed with multiple RS discussing various aspects of copper loss. Hence, keep. --Mark viking (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Transformer is already quite a large article and should not be further expanded with peripheral details. "Copper loss" is a well known term, and readers searching for it would be better served by having an article directly addressing the subject. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are far more shitty articles on WP worthy of deletion than this.--178.103.190.96 (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As it is written, it looks like textbook WP:OTHERSTUFF. Care to develop? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I click on the books link above and get 45,700 hits. The term copper loss is not just about Joule heating but includes the notion of skin effect and proximity effect (carrier crowding due to electromagnetism). Maybe this article will mostly be a short description of what copper loss is with links to the articles about the technical physical phenomena, but that seems OK. If copper loss were only used in the context of power transformers, then a redirect to Transformer#Winding Joule losses might suffice, but the term copper loss is not just for transformers: inductors, motors, and generators also have copper losses. On the first page of the book search, there are references to rotor copper loss and stator copper losses (Kothari). The current article mentions copper loss in induction motors. Maybe it is important in other electric machinery; copper loss / power dissipation may be important in induction coils and ignition coils. Also, WP has several articles related to transformers: e.g., welding power supply and inverters. The design of induction heaters often involves minimizing copper losses (e.g. Litz wire stove top elements) or countering the generated heat by liquid cooling the induction heater#Work coil.[13] The analogy to Magnetic core#Core loss is poor because that section just hits the main points; it provides only one attack on eddy-current losses (laminations; the section ignores mixtures and glasses) and does not address modeling (e.g., Legg's equation). Furthermore, this article is just a stub; it does not discuss what winding techniques are available to mitigate proximity loss. Glrx (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the in-depth justification. I stand corrected--there is more to say about this topic. Changing my vote to keep, --Mark viking (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you write Glrx but the current article is not that wide and fits in the transformer article listed above. If an editor want to write a full article on copper losses, then that can still be done by taking the section from the transformer article and making a "main article" from that by expanding into inductors etc. I don't see much advantage for one option over the other and can live with keep as well as with the merge. DeVerm (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom: I see two issues here. One is the age-old WP philosophical dispute about whether a topic which could be expanded into a standalone but is not developped right now belongs to a stub or to a subsection of the parent article (FWIW I advocate the second). The other is the precise scope of the topic "copper loss" - is it any Joule loss in copper, Joule loss in wiring, Joule loss during AC operation, Joule loss in transformers...? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:57, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aoiri Obaigbo[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:ANYBIO. The only coverage in the cited references are passing mentions/quotes. I could find no other coverage of the subject other than social media. Jbh ^Talk 15:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as examining the article found no actual minimally convincing signs of independent notability, there's nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. It was obviously created by an "agent" for BabyloveNigeria. See here —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:00, 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 redirect to Frame Relay#FRF.12 (non-admin closure). The material seems to have already been merged, but the history will still be accessible if needed. I do not expect anyone to disagree with the "#FRF.12" targeting that Mark Viking suggested, but if so, feel free to list it at WP:RFD. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FRF.12[edit]

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

Nominated for PROD and also MERGE with Frame Relay before nominator of merge apparently changed their mind and wanted to keep the article. The article has never cited any sources. In the merge discussion, four sources were found, all primary (Cisco) sources; still no reliable secondary sources appear to exist. The technology is an offshoot of the Frame Relay technology. I am moving the few sentences from this article into the Frame Relay article. That leaves this one to be deleted. —Prhart com♥ 14:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete (redirect). I hope we can speedy close this; there is a pretty clear fail as far as being an encyclopedic topic is concerned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added 5 sources based on those given in the Frame Relay article and the talk pages. Three Cisco, two non-Cisco. As this is part of a Frame Relay Forum standard agreed upon by multiple manufacturers, it is not clear to me that Cisco is a primary reference. I want to search a bit more before making a recommendation. --Mark viking (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Frame Relay like nominator started. This is not an off-shoot of frame relay but actually part of it. Also, the Cisco references are secondary references, not primary. DeVerm (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Frame Relay#FRF.12. There looks to be enough secondary sourcing in the article to make this topic nominally notable. But merging the material into Frame Relay article gives it better context for the readers. Until someone builds a Frame Relay Forum article describing the various parts of the standard, Frame Relay is the best place for it. --Mark viking (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Frame relay. Material was merged there by Prhartcom. Nomination for deletion seems like an unnecessary extra step in this case. ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Frame Relay. This seems to be the best option per AfD nom. I have to say that it appears to me that Cisco refs #1 and #3 should be considered as primary and the blog (#2) probably not. The agreement, I am not sure - primary or secondary? --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:13, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Shia Day[edit]

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

I can find no WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources for this event in Google News, Scholar or Books. It was deleted on the same grounds in an AFD a month ago, but speedy G4 was declined on the grounds that new sources have been added: I assume that this refers to the article from MarjaeyatTV.com. I can't tell whether this is a video blog or a television channel, and whether it's a WP:RS, but it seems from the lack of widespread coverage of this observance that it's not yet a notable annual observance per WP:GNG. OnionRing (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The seventh snippet on the first page of Google says, "May 8, 2016...Discover all important facts about internationalshiaday.com e.g. it was created 20 days ago and is visited by 780 people every month. (websitepart.com/www/internationalshiaday.com)." I also note that while there is mention in the article of an observance in Washington, DC, the article lists no well-known Washington media reporting the event. Fails WP:DEL8 (WP:N) and WP:DEL14 (WP:NOTPROMOTION). Unscintillating (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G4. All evidence suggests that this version is substantially similar to the one that was already deleted. The user is persistently re-creating it and should be blocked. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:05, 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. and salt, as this is the third deletion JohnCD (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pride Airways[edit]

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

This future airline does not appear to meet the Notability Guidelines at this point. The only mentions I can find of the airline are on other wikis, and a couple blog like sites.

The article was originally tagged for CSD G3 as a hoax. The limited search results I did find, in my opinion, push it out of the obvious Hoax category for speedy deletion. That said, its either a Hoax, or WP:TOOSOON. Monty ₈₄₅ 13:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per my previous CSD nomination. Based from this Facebook link, it looks this airline is obviously fake. -WayKurat (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted above, the page is either a hoax or WP:TOOSOON. No reliable sources confirming its launch. Meatsgains (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, I'm not sure if it's a hoax or not, but since it doesn't actually exist yet, and thus has no notable coverage, delete. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as there's sufficient consensus, searches have found nothing better and it seems noticeable there's simply excessive questionability here, both the apparent founding date but absolutely no sources and simply everything overall therefore. SwisterTwister talk 17:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.Ljgua124 (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt as a hoax that someone has gone to a lot of trouble over, spending time to twice create a WP article, among other things. [What follows is partly copied from my post at the beginning of May on the Talk page of the first Pride Airways article, which was restored at my request so I wouldn't have to spend hours trawling for supporting evidence again].

There is no website for the company, but someone went to the effort of setting up a Pride Airways Youtube channel, then copying this Youtube video showing a Delta Air Lines flight from New York to Los Angeles and representing it as a Pride Airways flight; and doing a similar thing with this video, copied and re-presented as this. There is a Facebook page, that was linked to in the first incarnation article and that at the time consisted only of side drawings of aircraft; when I checked the Facebook page 12-14 hours ago I found these side drawings of aircraft had apparently been removed and replaced with two obviously-photoshopped digital photos of a Boeing 767 purportedly in Pride Airways livery. The only other web presence I could find - seven weeks ago or now - is a page on Wikimapia, which was last modified the same day the first version of the article was created. The IATA airline Code originally listed in the first article's infobox was that of Biman Bangladesh Airlines, while the ICAO Code displayed was PDA, which has not been assigned to any airline.

I am of the opinion that there is a connection with gay pride. My opinion is based on the name itself; the colours used on the logo of the "airline"; the person named as Managing Director in the original article (Danton Remoto, who appears to be a gay activist); and the person originally named as CEO, who may be this Facebook account with ties to this Facebook account. The organization associated with the Facebook account is mentioned in the WP article LGBT culture in the Philippines.

The above-mentioned things in the first incarnation of the article (cached version of first incarnation on a WP mirror site here) have been sanitised from this version, perhaps in an effort to make the hoax less obvious. The salient points are that there is no website or any mention in any aviation-related media, or even any mention in Filipino media; all there is, is the Facebook page with faked images; the YouTube channel with faked videos; and the user-edited Wikimapia. YSSYguy (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Dcirovic (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom also. No reliable sources yet on the supposed opening of the airline by 2017. - Supergabbyshoe (talk2me)
Delete Unsourced and likely hoax. — Music1201 ^talk 04:39, 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 redirect. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 03:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Ottawa sinkhole[edit]

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

I was under the impression from reading Wikipedia's policies that this is not a newspaper. Sinkholes are common place and nothing makes this one special. EditorDownUnder (talk) 11:09, 17 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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, fails WP:GNG per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. Just another run of the mill news story, nothing to see here, move along. :) - SanAnMan (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Rideau Street or Confederation Line per discussions given below. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rideau Street where it should have gone in the first place. The utter banality of this event and routine news coverage would make me say delete if there weren't a suitable target. Incidentally, Ottawa is largely built on clay and has frequent sinkholes—2014, 2013, 2012, etc. etc. [14]. Voceditenore (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rideau Street; there's already a sentence there on it, which is enough for such a tiny event. ansh 666 18:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rideau Street, leaving open the option to selectively merge if anyone's interested in doing so. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rideau Street; looks like the relevant material is already merged. Neutrality^talk 00:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rideau Street as outlined by everybody above. There is some content that should be included. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rideau Street - I think there already is enough there so a redirect is enough. DeVerm (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Confederation Line - this is not a single event, but an ongoing story of a major construction project error, extensive disruption at a major intersection of a capital city over weeks-to-months compounding what was already the most disruptive construction in the city's history, and an investigation that will turn into a legal case to assign blame and costs, complicated by the delay in shutting off the water flooding into the tunnel boring project. Subsequent developments can be expected for years to come. The story has just begun. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. @LeadSongDog: Do you want to keep or merge? Is it related to the construction of Rideau station? Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There will be articles for all the new stations coming soon. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think keep is the better approach, as the alternative would end up with each of the affected-station articles, the Rideau Street article, and the Confederation Line article having duplicated content. By keeping this article, they need simply wikilink. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is absolutely no way to prove that these subsequent events will occur, or that "the story has just begun", WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. This may indeed be the start of something more, but until that time comes, there's no need for this article, which deals solely with this one solitary event, existing. I've changed my vote to a redirect to Rideau Street or Confederation Line, but that's the extent of it. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the 2016 sinkhole is such a big deal why isn't there an article about the 2014 sinkhole (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/road-collapse-leaves-8-metre-wide-sinkhole-at-tunnelling-site-1.2546074). EditorDownUnder (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Nothing about this is so independently notable in its own right as to require a standalone article as a separate topic from its natural parents. It should certainly be mentioned in Rideau Street and Confederation Line as an aspect of those topics, and ~~I'm torn as to which one should be the primary redirect target for the title (if we even keep a redirect at all)~~ the title should be kept as a redirect to Confederation Line (we can then minimize duplication of content by briefly summarizing the event in Rideau Street and allowing the line article to hold the substance), but this in no way needs its own article separately from the ones that already existed. If the significant effects that LeadSongDog suggests above actually do come to pass, then a new article can be created at that time — but the justification for a separate article will be after those effects have already come to pass, not right away on the basis of one user's WP:CRYSTAL predictions about what might happen in the future. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled. If first-rank publishers in multiple countries do take note of an event, what cause do we have to think that it is not notable? Sure, we could put it on hold, then try to rewrite it later, but what's the value in that? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing the point. Nobody in this discussion has said that Wikipedia should entirely erase any acknowledgement at all of the fact that it happened from appearing anywhere at all in Wikipedia — but the standard for "notable enough to warrant a standalone article about it as an independent topic in its own right" is quite a lot higher than the standard for "notable enough to warrant mention in the existing articles about related topics". This clears bar #2, and nobody's said otherwise — but it doesn't clear bar #1 as long as long-term implications, passing the ten year test, can only be speculated about rather than shown to already be true. It's a core principle of Wikipedia that we are WP:NOTNEWS — every single thing that happens does not always automatically need its own standalone article. There was a minor earthquake in my hometown last week, for example — but there were no reports of any damage or injury, so it doesn't require anything more than a brief acknowledgement in the section of the city's main article that already covers the seismicity of the region. The ice-storm blackout in Toronto a couple of Christmases ago does not have its own separate article; it's simply discussed in the article on the storm as an aspect of that, rather than being its own standalone topic. And on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That 10YT essay is in no way representative of normal WP practice. We routinely write on topics more recent than ten years old. It's simply the exercise of editorial judgement that the topic will have enduring interest. Of course no one is claiming that this will have as much long-term interest as Hurricane Katrina, but it will almost certainly be more impactful than a Pokémon, or a garage-band single release, or any number of other trivial topics we routinely accept. We have an entire category of articles like Etiwanda Fire. Perhaps the title is the issue here, so that editors here are thinking this is "just another sinkhole". Can you show me other examples that are more central to an urban core? Or is the issue just the absence of dead bodies? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is also a fallacious argument... ansh 666 20:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. From wp:OSE: These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. In otherwords, judge them on whether they make sense, not on whether they are OSE arguments. Even mundane things can be interesting in extreme examples. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point of the ten-year test too, if you think the age of the topic has anything to do with it. There is not, and never has been, any rule that Wikipedia cannot write an article about something until ten years after it happens — what has to pass the ten-year test is the significance of the purported long-term effects of the incident, not the timing of when the incident happened. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When, exactly, did we start treating essays as more important than policy? This is a simple matter of common sense, but if you're prepared to do a thorough job of the merge, I'm prepared to be the one to drop the stick. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ten-year test is completely consistent with my definition of "common sense" — just throwing that term around like a football does not automatically imbue your position with the Crown of Righteousness and everybody else with the sceptre of the fool. And IAR, which you hid under that "common sense" link, only applies insofar as you can make a compelling and credible case as to how ignoring the rule is actually improving the encyclopedia — it does not, for instance, mean that you could move Barack Obama to the title Mister Piffles just because you felt like ignoring the rule that an article's title has to reflect the topic, and then cite IAR as an exemption from the consequences. But you haven't demonstrated (or even really tried to demonstrate) how having a separate article about this, instead of discussing it in the existing articles about the related topics, is "improving the encyclopedia" — you're citing IAR as if it meant "I can do anything I want just because I want to, and don't need any real reason because IAR", which isn't what it means. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing: wp:AT actually is policy, including the wp:NAMINGCRITERIA section, so, no, Mister Piffles would not be subject to editorial judgement. The community has spoken clearly on that. An essay such as OSE or 10YT is a completely different thing. Now is there any more grave dancing to be done, or would you like to actually answer a question for once? LeadSongDog come howl! 01:16, 24 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Bautista[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Medical doctor who was a candidate in the Philippine Senate election, 2010, but didn't win a seat. I haven't found any reliable sources covering him, but I am not familiar with sources for Filipino politics, and searches are complicated by the fact that his name is shared with the Filipino fashion designer Martin Bautista. So rather than PRODding it, I bring it to AFD in case anyone who good Filipino sources can establish notability. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable gastroenterologist who unsuccessfully ran for Senate with little coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I only got one local newspaper cite which I think isn't enough to push for notability. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Not notable enough.--Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unelected candidate for office does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that they qualify for inclusion for some other reason independent of their candidacy, then they have to win the seat, not just run for it, to pass WP:NPOL. But no preexisting notability for anything else has been shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 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) 03:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of 88 films releases[edit]

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

I believe this is a case of WP:NOTCATALOG. This is a catalog of all films released on dvd by this label, not a list of films produced by them Gbawden (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:SAL's WP:LISTPURP and might benefit the project with an expansion. Had it been a list of redlinks, perhaps deletion would serve... but this does not seem to be the case. IMHO Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. All of the films listed are linked referenced to a place to buy the movies. No indication of meeting WP:LSC or WP:Verifiability. Prof. Mc (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak keep if the references can be cleaned up to remove the spamrefs. Prof. Mc (talk) 19:38, 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brigitte Mars[edit]

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

Lacks notability. References given in the article are grossly inadequate - a very brief (and likely self-written) contributor bio on HuffPo, and two other references to non-RS. An editor has provided some additional links on the article talk page, but in my opinion these do not demonstrate notability as none of them are actually about the article subject or discuss her more than in passing. Thparkth (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:FRINGE. Blythwood (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is a biography of an herbal expert. I don't see the connection to WP:FRINGE. Please explain. ~Kvng (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no demonstration of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spot on. Subject wrote the main citation and article has many places that lack the citations needed for wiki. Subject lacks notability even with proper citationsAllaboutjane8181 (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you appreciate that problems with the article are not a valid reason to support deletion. Only your claim of lacking notability argues for deletion and I ask that you reevaluated that in the context of the new sources I have presented below. ~Kvng (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in uncited reliable sources:
- [15] "So I called Boulder's Brigitte Mars - an herbalist and author of The Desktop Guide to Herbal Medicine (Basic Health Publications, $19.95) and 11 other books on herbs and nutrition. Mars also holds workshops and seminars and teaches at Naropa (see brigittemars.com).",
- [16] "Mars is the author of The Sexual Herbal and offered to make meals that contained a lot of cinnamon. The results? "After a week, she winked at me."",
- [17] "Brigitte Mars, a Boulder-based herbalist and nutritional consultant, says natural medicine is ``going mainstream.",
- [18] "herbalist Brigitte Mars, author of Beauty by Nature...believes that the most pampering thing a person can do for themself is to take a bath.",
- [19] "Brigitte Mars, author of several books, including Herbs for Healthy Skin, Hair & Nails (Keats, 1998)",
- [20] "Brigitte Mars co-authored "The Hemp Nut Cookbook," which includes recipes for scones, pasta and chocolate torte made with hemp.".

I added these to the article's talk page when I deprodded. I'm not sure comments from Blythwood, Johnpacklambert and Allaboutjane8181 have taken these into account. ~Kvng (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read the entire articles on that site, but it doesn't look like any of them are actually about Brigitte Mars, or talk about her in any kind of depth. Am I wrong? Thparkth (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is mostly in the context of quotes from the subject in her capacity as a prominent herbalist. I have added excerpts of material about the subject to my post above. In sum, I believe this constitutes significant coverage and indicates she's considered by journalists to be a quotable expert on the subject ∴ notable. ~Kvng (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see these examples as being trivial, and failing to meet the WP:GNG standard for significant coverage. Thparkth (talk) 14:53, 16 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 10:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is mainly covered in HuffPost blogs and only mentioned in passing in reliable sources, thus lacking significant notability. Meatsgains (talk) 13:53, 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 redirect to Dread Empire's Fall. No sourced content so nothing mergeable. Jenks24 (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Sundering (novel)[edit]

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

Non-notable science fiction novel. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per this Locus RS reference, it appears that 2003 may have been the actual publication date. Walter Jon Williams is certainly a notable author, so if there's no notability for this volume, then the content should be merged to the series, or the author, rather than deleted outright. Jclemens (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dread Empire's Fall. I can't really find anything for this novel, not enough for it to really warrant its own article. I'd recommend redirecting this to the series page with history in case more sources are available that aren't on the Internet, but offhand the impression I've gotten from some of the sourcing is that the series is/was fairly popular in its specific niche but it never gained a foothold as far as RS coverage goes. There's enough out there to show that the series would merit an article, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:28, 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 10:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dread Empire's Fall. Artw (talk) 02:33, 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 speedy delete. A7 —SpacemanSpiff 17:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surjeet Kaur[edit]

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

No reliable sources for notability of this worthy lady. Of the 4 refs provided, "The Calcutta Newsletter" has no WP article and can't be found in Google, nor the book called "The Walia family of the successful" (no author, publisher or date), and the 4th ref is just a title. Article was previously created twice in March 2016, by an editor with no other surviving edits, and speedied: see User talk:Harmanpreet 12. Current version created by a different editor, whose first and only edit this is; an IP added a note saying "NOTE:Maji's life events were recorded in a family book, therefore not many citations are available.", which supports her non-notability. PamD 20:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:34, 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 10:25, 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) 10:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhadiar[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this clan is notable, but it is difficult when sources are unlikely to be in English. Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can find no reliable sources that discuss this community. - Sitush (talk) 04:38, 15 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 10:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources confirming notability. Meatsgains (talk) 14:23, 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. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 03:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gzim Selmani[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Fails WP:NMMA with just one top tier fight and that was a loss two years ago. Being signed to a developmental contract for NXT doesn't make him notable as a pro wrestler, either. The coverage consists of routine reporting of results or the promotional release about him signing a NXT contract, nothing that meets GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis article has plenty of citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.147.251.94 (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepRecently made NXT television debut, first Albanian wrestler in WWE history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluejaysfan777 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NXT television debut on June 8 at a major event. Notable as a featured television performer. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on TV doesn't guarantee notability nor does being an Albanian wrestler (who isn't yet in the real WWE).Mdtemp (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on TV as a featured WWE performer does guarantee notability within pro wrestling. Performer is as notable as No Way Jose, Elias Samson etc. According to WP:PAGEVIEW there were over 4,000 pageviews of this article yesterday, that suggests notability to me.94.174.101.121 (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Fails WP:NMMA and I don't think NXT appearance is notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Definitely fails to meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters. I'm not a pro wrestling fan and there is no SNG for pro wrestlers, except for being entertainers, so I rely on WP:GNG. I see fight results and some coverage of him signing with NXT, but that's just a training program for WWE. That means he isn't competing at the highest level, a requirement for athletes, and he doesn't meet WP:GNG. I don't think appearing on TV guarantees notability. If someone can point me to some significant independent coverage then I'll reconsider my vote. Papaursa (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing my vote based on the sources below. The fact that I'm not sure about the reliability and independence of those sources is why I'm not changing my vote to keep. They are, however, enough to give me reasonable doubt about his notability. As for those who object to my mentioning the MMA criteria, it was to show that I had considered all SNG criteria. Papaursa (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Independent coverage: [21] [22] [23] [24] Again, this is a professional wrestler who recently made his debut at a major event and is now an active part of WWE's television roster. See List of WWE personnel. His MMA career is irrelevant to his notability.94.174.101.121 (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't underestimate NXT despite it being developmental. It tours nationally and internationally, and it's TV show is broadcast around the world. Its international outreach competes with the #2 American company TNA because WWE is so successful. starship.paint ~ KO 13:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not meeting WP:NMMA is insufficient reason to delete, as he nit just an MMA fighter. Specific notability guidelines are always secondary to the GNG, which, as the anon notes, he passes. Also, while NXT is, in part, developmental for the main WWE roster, they do sell out 20,000 seat arenas for NXT shows. Not exactly "just a training program". oknazevad (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Above comment I agree with as well as that by Papaursea. (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.250.253 (talk) [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 10:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added more reliable sources for his WWE career per WP:PW/RS. starship.paint ~ KO 14:34, 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 redirect to Prism (Katy Perry album). (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Choose Your Battles[edit]

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

Its been two years since the last clubbed AFD (where this article was part of a clubbed Afd and it was decided that each article should be discussed separately). I fail to see how this still passes WP:NSONGS. The first 4 references all have passing mentions about the song, as well as what Perry thinks of it. There for it does not have an independent third party notability where a reliable source discusses on the song and its accompaniment. The next set of references (from 5 - 13) all have passable mentions about the song, like how they conduct in Album reviews and minor composition details from Musicnotes. Lastly, the song had obtained a feeble chart position in a minor market chart like that of South Korea. I fail to see how keeping this is of beneficial therefore this can easily be deleted. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSONGS since just about all the valuable content is already in Prism (Katy Perry album), and this doesn't really have any quality independent coverage outside of album reviews. An artist's own commentary on works isn't enough by itself either as that would just be self-promotion. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSONGS. Although I appreciate and respect all the hard work the editor has contributed to making this a very well written and substantial article (Thank you Aaron, for your outstanding work for the KP WikiProject!!), this ultimately comes down to a lack of notability. It was not leaked prior to album release, released as a promo or radio single, nor did it garner multiple in-depths reviews that really discuss the background, composition, or notability? I feel with proper editing, the information this article possesses would greatly contribute to the main "Prism" article. Giacobbe ^talk 22:16, 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. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. Discussion about a merge can continue on an article talk page if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Narayanapuram Thrikkayil Temple[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2 years, non-notable local temple claiming no notability failing WP:GNG. De-PRODing editor can write as many lines in the article of the town after providing WP:RS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:15, 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 17:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, probably to List of Hindu temples in Kerala, if sufficient sourcing is not found during this AFD to keep this separate, although I tend to believe it is in fact significant. There is ongoing similar AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilimarathukavu Temple where it is noted that another AFD found that merely being 200 years old is not sufficient to establish Wikipedia-notability of a church as a separate article (and I agree). But also there is current need to develop list-articles on temples in India, with inbound redirects from temple names, in part to head off zillions of separate article creations and AFDs (that seem to be picking up in pace). Redirects are cheap, and there is no problem with the redirect left behind. Merging may motivate discussion at Talk:List of Hindu temples in Kerala about the notability standards for items in that list, which can be quite lower than standard for separate articles. Or perhaps discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India is needed. The list-article in Kerala and others like it need to be developed and are not in great form now; good general sources should be found (perhaps like some suggested at the Kilimarathukavu Temple AFD). I !vote for more constructive processes, rather than complete eliminations of temples that are in fact probably very old and significant and which have photos and so on, Support emerging editors rather than squelching them. ;) --do ncr am 18:24, 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 10:18, 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) 10:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pazhayattil Devi Temple[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2 years, non-notable local temple claiming no notability failing WP:GNG. PROD declined stating no reason. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:15, 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 17:36, 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 10:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero reliable sources covering the subject, expect Google maps... Meatsgains (talk) 14:25, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chandu Yarram[edit]

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

Non notable. WP:TOOSOON. Most of the refs are primary or trivial mentions. Excessive refs from indiawest which seem press releases. not enough Independent reliable coverage. Variation 25.2 (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still nothing better at all especially considering it was restarted and deleted within the past 10 days, my searches have found nothing better than a few links and her IMDb basically says it all. Nothing acceptable yet. SwisterTwister talk 01:37, 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 16:58, 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 10:17, 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) 10:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Business Solutions[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Rjd0060 with meaningless rationale "remove old PROD tag". The existing refs and anything else I see online are not reliable or in-depth, IMHO. (Note: there's a bunch of PR spam in the GNews). As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya - by all means delete this page, the company itself doesn't even exist any more Saigon2010 (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OUTOFBUSINESS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better and there's nothing else particularly better to suggest there's the needed salvageability. SwisterTwister talk 01:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 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 10:17, 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. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GreenEvo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I prodded it last with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by the creator with the following edit summary: "reliable information and secondary sources added". I am afraid I still don't see the references ans sufficient. This was at AfD last year and was closed as no consensus since nobody but me and the creator participated. As far as I am concerned, this fails notability today as much as it did last year _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 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 10:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There seems to be reliable sources and as a government initiative I feel that it passes notability guidelines. - Pmedema (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(@Pmedema: Could you say which sources are reliable? Because I don't see any, and I discussed them in more detail in RS. And could you quote the part or parts of WP:N which say that government initiative are notable? Because I am sad to say that I think you do not understand that policy (because I am 100% sure there is nothing it that says "government initiatives are notable"), and your argument is unfortunately WP:ITSNOTABLE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So you should educate me on the European Commission that is not a reliable source. If that is the case then I should be looking for the AFD for that article. I guess it is also your opinion that the Polish science and news/online magazines [25], [26], [27], [28] and [29] are all not reliable sources? If that is the case then I should follow your experience and capitulate. I am very sorry that there is no mention of Government Initiatives specifically in WP:N. I guess we should get cracking and look for any articles that have notability mentions that are not specifically documented! [30] is an awards agency... ok you got me... not sure if it's a notable award. - Pmedema (talk) 15:47, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Scenarios[edit]

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

This article has no references, and I don't believe it meets the WP:GNG. I couldn't find anything beyond fansites. Random86 (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:GNG. A google search shows unconnected fan sites. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:23, 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 15:47, 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 10:10, 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) 10:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Mexico City airport expansion[edit]

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

I see no value in a spinoff article as it's already adequately covered in Mexico_City_International_Airport#2003.E2.80.932007_expansion. I also oppose redirect as this is an unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 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 10:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article is unecessary, agree with nom that subject is adequately covered in main article, also that article size is not an issue. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 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. czar 00:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Game Database[edit]

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

Personally, I would love to see a dedicated website to video games, similar to IMDb, but on the custom Google WP:VG/RS search engine, I get one result for its entire name, while looking up "igdb game database", I get three results, of users replying in forums. Hopefully, this is just a case of WP:TOOSOON. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find the sources to make it meet the WP:GNG. Would be glad to reconsider if others provide sources though - I could have missed them, as the subject's name is a combination of three rather common/generic words, so there could be good sources in a see of false positives out there... Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This source provides significant coverage, but it's published by Medium, which has been described as "an online publishing platform" that is blog-like in nature. As such, its reliability is questionable for Wikipedia's purposes. Additional searches are only providing mentions, such as in this article from ProgrammableWeb. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Possible source. Develop. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases don't contribute to notability. They are primary sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article creator presented an Swedish IGN source on my talk page. Consensus has been that any region of IGN is reliable, so I think this would be a usable source to put towards notability, though I can't tell what it says, so I can't be 100% sure, nor could I personally implement it into the article. The IP added some other sources on my talk page too, but the rest seemed to be more along the line of press releases... Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the IGN article would be a useful source - it gives an overview of the site, and includes an interview with one of the people working on the site. I cannot find any other reliable sources that discuss IGDB, however, so I have to go with delete.--IDV^talk 10:31, 16 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 10:07, 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. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change for the Children Foundation[edit]

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

May no longer exist. No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 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 10:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "May no longer exist" is not a reason for deletion, but as this subjection doesn't meet WP:GNG with no use-able sources found, this is a delete, maybe a sentence about this could be added to the Nick Jonas article at Philanthropy? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong rational for deletion but I agree this should be merged into the Nick Jonas article and this one deleted leaving a redirect. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 03:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That it no longer exists is not a reason for deletion, but it never was notable--nor is its successor organization. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 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) 02:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phuket FantaSea[edit]

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

Doesn't show notability. Seems to be a run-of-the-mill theme park. Google search brings up almost nothing besides passing mentions and the company website. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete – Some sources exist, but falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. The topic receives a lot of mentions, but significant coverage is sparse.~~ Some source examples are listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thailand's Islands & Beaches
Fodor's Thailand (1 ¶)

Comment for the closing administrator: I'd recommend salting this page, it keeps getting recreated (at least 2 times by the same user). Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's among the most prominent commercial tourist attractions in Phuket, and its business operations have been covered in-depth multiple times by the Manager magazine and newspaper,[31][32] as well as other news sources including The Nation.[33] --Paul_012 (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Struck my !vote above. Appears to meet WP:CORPDEPTH per sources provided above by Paul 012. Google Translate is not working to translate the entire Thai webpages for me, so I had to translate these pages long form by copy and pasting into Google Translate bits at a time, to avoid the "too many characters" error, but from what I've seen, the topic appears to meet CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:10, 15 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 09:58, 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Error Management (EM)[edit]

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

This comes across as an essay; note that most of the references are to a book co-authored by the article creator, who (surprise) removed the PROD without any reason given. So there is in all probability an element of promotion in this article, which is fundamentally a load of guff. Learning from your mistakes is hardly a new idea. TheLongTone (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 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 09:02, 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 09:52, 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) 10:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Mitchell III (Basketball)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet notability standards. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 08:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 08:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 08:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 08:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 08:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL. Rikster2 (talk) 12:05, 15 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 09:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rikster2, and note that this athlete also fails WP:NCOLLATH. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that he meets any notability standard. Rlendog (talk) 20:49, 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wojciech Kocyan[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. I cannot find anything to justify this passing those, or WP:ARTIST, or WP:PROF. Few mentions in passing, few announcements of recitals and such, but no in-depth coverage or such. Can anyone find anything to justify keeping this? Ps. Ping User:Wgolf who prodded this a while back. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:59, 11 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 09:49, 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. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jude Quinn[edit]

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

Fictional character in film I'm Not There. Article written in WP:OR sophomoric style. To add material to I'm Not There article would add WP:PLOTBLOAT and WP:UNDUE weight to article. Mick gold (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much ado about nada. Absolutely no reason to have an article on a single character in a film. Already has a sizable section in the film article. Softlavender (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the first two posts. WP:NOTESSAY applies as well. If there is anything of value it could be merged to the article for the film. MarnetteD|Talk 19:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and rationale above. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and cleanup, as the more targeted sources search seems to show more than adequate RS coverage. Yes, this isn't particularly encyclopedic, and yes, I'm sure the character is already covered in the movie article... but neither of those are deletion reasons, since they can be fixed by regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's basically a WP:Content fork, which is a reason for deletion. BMK (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any non-trivial material that's not in the movie article already, then Delete. BMK (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another fictional character in I'm Not There, Jack Rollins, has already been discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Rollins (Character). The consensus was: Delete. Mick gold (talk) 08:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the Jack Rollins AfD, not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator's reasons. Moisejp (talk) 04:40, 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. The hammer strikes again. Jenks24 (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Bengali Movie[edit]

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

Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Also, a very very good example of WP:HAMMER. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be Deleted as it doesnt have any reliable sources and it appears to be made up by the Creator without any constructive thought.In fact this article should be nominated for WP:Speedy Deletion.--Param Mudgal ^talk? 10:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER. PhilKnight (talk) 00:19, 12 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 09:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER. Mick gold (talk) 15:23, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manfred Schönfelder[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines (staff officer), nor WP:SOLDIER, as no source for the Knight's Cross has been provided. The article has been tagged since march 2016. I found one RS mentioning Schönfelder as a "close classmate" of Jochen Peiper. This is a one-sentence mention and being an acquaintance of a famous person by itself does not appear to be notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 10 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 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. I also found no credible sourcing on this individual, who clearly fails GNG and SOLDIER. GAB^gab 17:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:50, 11 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 09:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not very notable in my opinionEnsadvocate (talk) 05:08, 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) 10:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Homestays[edit]

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

A somewhat spammy (now less spammy) article on a non-notable outfit--at least not notable according to the coverage I can find. There's a few mentions in Gay Star News and on the blogs of some publications, but nothing in-depth, nothing notable. Just another business. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. considerably spammy--quitre repetitive because there's nothing much to say at this point. And consequently, not notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 16 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 09:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, a gsearch brings up nothing useable, have had a look at the references cited (unfortunately some come back as errors) -

1. "About us". Gay Homestays. Retrieved 2013-07-05. - company's website.

2. Pirolli, Bryan (2015-12-10). "Misterbnb: Gay travel revolution takes on homestays". CNN. - only a small mention (much better cite for misterb&b).

3. "Gay Homestays Offers Alternate Opportunity to Save Money While Exploring New Destinations The Seattle Lesbian". Theseattlelesbian.com. 2012-03-25. Retrieved 2013-07-05. - article states "Source: News Release".

4. "IGLTA - Gay Homestays".[dead link] - a search of their website brings up nothing relating to this company (to see all the search results just hit the show more button (lots of times:)) situated at the bottom of the search page).

5. "Gay Homestays | Gay & Lesbian Tourism Australia". Galta.com.au. Retrieved 2013-07-05. - 404 error, nothing able to be found on the website.

6. Matthew Jenkin (2012-10-22). "Take the perfect 'gaycation' at an LGBT homestay". Gay Star News. Retrieved 2013-07-05. - article of not much depth.

7. The benefits of travelling alone. "The benefits of travelling alone | So So Gay magazine". Sosogay.co.uk. Retrieved 2013-07-05. - 404 error, a search finds nothing.

8. "All About Gay Homestays". attitude.co.uk. Retrieved 2013-07-05. - nothing found on website.

9. "Exclusive Interview: LGBT Equality Activist, Simon Rodgers - BlogBlog". Blog.gayhomestays.com. 2012-12-11. Retrieved 2013-07-05. - just a mention at end of interview, also this is company's blog. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of automobile model nameplates with a discontiguous timeline[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined prod. Automobile makers sometimes reuse "nameplates" for whatever reason (a logic to the numbers, like with BMW, or trying to capitalize the "mythical" status of some old model). This was previously deleted (long, long ago), and the current article does nothing to actually establish the notability of the subject (it happens and is verifiable, but with only these two criteria thousands of list articles can be made). Fram (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete somewhat reluctantly since it is interesting and represents a lot of work. However WP is not for putting together interesting collections of data when others have not remarked on their notability.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 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 00:27, 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 09:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Looks like utter trivia to me. Class455fan1 (talk) 14:44, 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. No compelling arguments for this article's retention have been made. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rose of Paracelsus: On Secrets & Sacraments[edit]

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

Non-notable book. No coverage in reliable sources. Prod tag and redirect have been reverted without edit summary or discussion on talk page, so here we are at AfD. Propose redirecting to author, William Leonard Pickard. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, is Packard actually notable - "one of two people convicted in the largest lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) manufacturing case in history."? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this horrid stub with author William Leonard Pickard. Quis separabit? 19:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To the author page, per the above, as I see zero independent RS coverage for it. Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notablity is conferred by recent review in Psychedelic Press UK Volume XVI (May, 2016) by Henrik Dahl of William Leonard Pickard's "The Rose of Paracelsus: On Secrets and Sacraments" See https://psychedelicpress.co.uk/products/psychedelic-press-volume-xvi (p. 61-67) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarynGraves (talk • contribs) 20:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - non-notable fringe. A mention in Pickard's biography would do. Barnrazor's comments (below) are unpersuasive, since the have included much material added to the book that seems undue and add no convincingly reliable sources. Blythwood (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I have found nothing better at all and there's no need to merge if there are chances there's nothing else apart from the obvious information mentioned at his own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice.

Thanks, st170e^talk 00:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be merged with Pickard's biography, because the subject is independent and likely to be extensively expanded, so that splitting will be required from the bio. Merging would create a lengthy and unrelated content in the bio, and would necessitate a split. Edits to this article are being done frequently. Nothing in the bio relates to this article, and this article does not duplicate content in the bio.

Locations and scenes in sequence added to article

Description of characters posted, as well as locations of scenes in sequence.Barnrazor (talk) 11:30, 15 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 09:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Barnrazor "Merging would create a lengthy and unrelated content in the bio, and would necessitate a split.", a straight merge of the two articles would result in around 2500 words of readable prose, no need to split, see WP:LENGTH - "A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes." Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the length of the merged article is not the issue, but the relative complexity of content of the book narrative, which does not correlate to Pickard's bio. Merging both articles, while within the "average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes," would result in two distinctly disparate and unrelated issues in the same single article. Merging would reduce coherency of the now separate articles. Formatting is being adjusted and other articles linked. Strong keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnrazor (talk • contribs) 15:18, 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 merge to Paul Cardall. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Angel Music[edit]

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

Speedy deletion contested on grounds of the founder being notable but notability is not inherited per WP:INHERITORG and notability has not been established for this company per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP Mo ainm~Talk 08:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mo ainm~Talk 09:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches have found only a few minimal sources, nothing particularly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant content to Paul Cardall since he's the founder of this label. At least two artists associated with this label have charted on the Billboard Top New Age Album chart, but the coverage seems to be sparse (less than 10 reliable sources from a Google News search and all limited to Utah). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Paul Cardall. Per source searches, does not qualify for a standalone article per WP:N. A merge will improve the target article, which only has mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the article about the founder of the label Paul Cardall, per Wikipedia's usual practice in such cases. Cavarrone 10:04, 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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Podesta[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, and he doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources he appears in are exactly that - sources he appears in. The "Nevada Union senior" isn't Podesta - it's his teammate; Podesta gets a mention once as team captain, and that's all he gets. The Pro Paintball is a throwaway article to get a team membership for Podesta. I can't get the video from where it's listed, but it's all of 5m47s outdoors on Youtube, so there's no way it's as in-depth as needed. He gets a mention in the Levitz article because it's one of the things the developer did - Podesta isn't the focus, and I can't get the Press-Democrat article, but I assume from the title it's the same thing. So he's got spot coverage in larger articles, and that's it. He hasn't seemed to have done much in pro paintball - you'd think if he was notable he'd get a cover at Splat Mag, but that apparently hasn't happened. He also got a blip on a gun debate because he owns a paintball store. There's no verifiable citation of his designs. In short, minimal coverage isn't met. Basically, a random niche-business individual. MSJapan (talk) 07:37, 17 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 09:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable as a businessman and sportsperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not establish notability. ~Kvng (talk) 14:05, 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. Pretty much G7. Jenks24 (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abid Ali (cricketer, born 1996)[edit]

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

Not played any domestic cricket. GreenCricket (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not confer notability Seasider91 (talk) 07:45, 17 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 09:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Delete - the Cricinfo profile is misleading - it makes it seem like he is yet to make his FC debut - but according to Cricket Archive, he has played 7 FC matches. St Anselm (talk) 09:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: there's some confusion around which individual this is. The scorecard from Cricket Archive linked to his debut is here. However, Cricinfo has this scorecard linking to another person with the same name. Also see the note I posted at the foot of GreenCricket's talkpage. Any help on identifying the correct individual and their notability will be most welcome! Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I got from the PCB: this is the player born in 1996 (on 4 Jan, contrary to CA and CI), based on the U-19 record. This is the player, born in 1987, whose matches CA has attributed to the younger player. Here is his CA profile. The older player is a batsman and the younger a bowler, so it definitely looks like a mistake on CA's part. —Raven42 (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree that it was a mistake on CA's part. It does not look like the younger player has played any FC matches. I have changed my !vote accordingly. St Anselm (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a forum discussion on the same issue. It looks possible that there is this 20-year-old batsman who has burst onto the scene and is averaging 50 in FC cricket, but in the absence of conclusive proof we should delete this article. St Anselm (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Nice detective work all round. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:27, 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 Keep, WP:SNOW. Certainly no consensus for deletion. fish&karate 11:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Jo Cox[edit]

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

This is going to be controversial, but I don't believe Jo Cox's article length is sufficiently large enough to warrant a spinoff article, even though many improvements have been made in the last 18 hours or so. For an analogous article, compare and contrast with Death of John Lennon. Discuss. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This major crime attracted worldwide headlines and reactions. Per WP:NCRIME "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources". See the category Category:Assassinations and its many sub-categories including Category:Assassination attempts. Issues surrounding the suspect, circumstances and motive should not be covered in the BIO of the victim. Rather disappointed we are going to be arguing about this. AusLondonder (talk) 07:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The content of this article can be taken care of in the main article. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 07:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - given the context and that Cox is first British female MP to be murdered, the event is notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is inconceivable to me that the first assassination of a British MP in a quarter of a century, which received instant worldwide media attention, would not be notable. Certainly the nominator has better things to do with their (and our) time. Such as improving the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which article would you like me to improve? Ironically enough, looking to improve the article (I put the lead blurb on ITN yesterday) is why I came here. I would rather work with people on one good article (not to be confused with a good article) than dilute my efforts over several. However I figure it's impossible to have a conversation like this right now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for deletion is not generally seen as improving an article. AusLondonder (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Please see here for a possible link to the suspected misuse of process. Mootros (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Sizewise this doesn't meet WP:SIZESPLIT at this moment, so could be accommodated within parent article. Brandmeister^talk 07:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandmeister: Little of the suspect is known and a trial will most likely occur. Please help improve it from the current state. AusLondonder (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likely, but now it's too soon. If enough info becomes available for a standalone article and/or the main article becomes too large, then yes, I think. Brandmeister^talk 07:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The first assassination of a British MP in a quarter of a century, as said before. There will be a trial to ought to be covered in detail. This particular AfD seem to be a misuse of process and the nominator could well be seen as filibustering. Mootros (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is currently getting a lot of media attention, as already said this is the first assassination of an MP in 25 years, the event will be in the news for a while as more information is known Seasider91 (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There is nothing here that cannot be covered adequately in the main article Jo Cox. WWGB (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (edit conflict) Let it snowball for a week or two, and see then if it's notable for having it's own article. Her bio is very small, so it could probably fit in there well. — Calvin999 07:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge for now mainly because of WP:BLPCRIME issues. "Murder of" isn't suitable until a trial has finished. UK law is strict on sub judice and I don't want to read about the defence or the judge at any trial or appeal complaining about things that were in the Wikipedia article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's move it to Death of Jo Cox then. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The move has already been requested (as there is a technical block). Pls comment on the talk page if you may. Mootros (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This will be an ongoing event and removes the bloat from the main bio. As the alleged attacker is alive, there will be a trial and a knock-on affect from that, which will be used to expand the article further. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above and WP:SNOW. Philip Stevens (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- per Ritchie. There is no reason why this should be a spin off of a very short existing article. The death is also very recent and not that complex when you compare it to other murder investigations. This can easily be incorporated into Cox's existing article. Cassianto ^Talk 08:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I agree with Calvin999. The article should be kept for now but reassessed in a few weeks once everything has died down and a better determination can be made as to if a separate article is warranted. I also agree with Cordless Larry that until a Murder conviction is obtained (even though that's pretty much certain) the article should be renamed as "Death of Jo Cox" or "Assassination of Jo Cox" as per the discussion on the talk page Davethorp (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that this is a story that will still evolve, and the page already has some information that I think would best not be merged with her personal article, nor should be deleted. Amelie poulain (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- No need for a separate article when all relevant information can easily fit in her biographical article. She was notable as a politician as well as for her death, so (choosing one article over the other) only a bio article is needed at the moment. Details of the suspect should be keep to a minimum and we really don't need a long list of tributes. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 09:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now: current event, will have more details in upcoming weeks. Keep for now, delete later if needed. Zamaster4536 (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This is a discussion regarding article namespace, not notability. Nobody is suggesting that the event should not be recorded in WP (a little trimming of the unnecessary will happen in due course, we are not expecting some international figure to say it's a good job she's dead, are we?) If later the murder becomes notable for some reason (i.e. subsequent events outside the scope of the individual), or because of WP:SIZE, then it can be split out again. Let's be honest, anybody who wants to read about the murder will also want/need details of poor Jo too, there is no logic to separation. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richhoncho Trim it now. Don't try and do it when less people will object. AusLondonder (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AusLondonder, I suggested a merge and gave a view, it is highly unlikely I will ever edit the Jo Cox article or anything to do with her death. Is that alright with you? --Richhoncho (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep High profile case occurring at a critical stage in British politics. There will definitely be an aftermath that will not fit into the bio article about Cox. w.carter-Talk 09:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a procedural note, the page has been moved to Death of Jo Cox. I'm not sure what should be done with the title of this AFD. Smurrayinchester 10:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: for all the reasons given by Richhoncho MrStoofer (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: All information can be easily integrated into the main biographical article. --Voyager (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that the main article, Jo Cox, has expanded roughly threefold since yesterday. I wouldn't call it long yet, but it's certainly developing. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's only Wikipedia:SIZESPLIT against, and this is a notable crime. Widefox; talk 10:59, 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) 10:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefy Patel[edit]

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

Almost entirely unreferenced, with no indication of notability per WP:NMODEL or WP:NACTOR. Won "Miss Teen India" in 2014, a beauty pageant of unknown notability, and was runner-up in a few others. I can't find anything online to support the claim that she appeared in a television show, and there's no significant coverage of her online from WP:RS to support notability per WP:BIO. OnionRing (talk) 06:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than this story, I can't find anything other than passing mentions of her. --Drm310 (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable model and actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

San Fernando Valley Dental Society[edit]

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

Local Dental Society. The national dental society is notable, and I could if pressed make a case for a State Society, though we do not usually keep these except for State Bars. I can not even begin to understand why anyone should think this of the remotest encyclopedic significance, let alone notability,. The principle violated is NOT DIRECTORY, and this is an exceptionally clear example. I am not clear why the ed. who removed the speedy thought otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Referenced only to primary sources. Lacking significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, which is not surprising. After all, who cares about a local chapter of a dental society except local dentists? The nominator is correct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I entirely concur with the speedy, there's nothing particularly convincing of a solidly notable article, a newly started organization for local dentists. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They aren't that new if they had 900 members in 1985, as reported in a LA Times article. I found a few mentions on the web, but in primary sources such as the webpages of affiliated dentists, I didn't find coverage of the organisation itself in the wider media. Notability has not been established when judged against WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the local chapter of a dental society would have a hard time passing WP:N, and there's nothing in any verifiable sources to suggest this organization is the exception. Concur with speedy. --ERK^talk 08:41, 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. Nomination withdrawn; thank you MSJapan (listening to David Sylvian right now--what are the odds?), and a big Midwestern-style WOOHOO to Nyttend. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Benton Review[edit]

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

Unsourced NN local paper. WP:ENN. Notability not asserted, Prodded and deprodded in the past, I sent it to CSD as unremarkable, and it was declined because of length of existence satisfied A7. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a local paper with no particular claim to notability. MSJapan (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in recognition of WP:RECENTISM. I found this 1936 mention in a paper two states away touting the subject's "wide reputation." I suspect if we where having this discussion in 1936, it wouldn't be difficult to establish notability. But, if we're collectively too lazy to do anything more than a web search for an institution that apparently originated in 1875, we should keep it for now. ~Kvng (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Confirmation bias, and totally off-track. The article subject is not being mentioned "two states away." The paper referred to in the article is the Scott County Democrat, not the Benton Democrat. That's a different paper; the Benton paper is the combination of two papers named Fowler, not Scott County. Now, since the source cited is a paper from Southeast Missouri (called The Southeast Missourian), I did a bit more looking around. The "Benton" mentioned in the source is likely the town of Benton, Missouri, located in Scott County, Missouri, (unsurprisingly) located in southeast Missouri. Scott County is repeatedly mentioned in this paper in several other articles. The Benton Democrat (from its article) does not serve a "Scott County". It serves five counties in NW Indiana, and before someone asks, Scott County, Indiana is located in SE Indiana. So the assertion is incorrect, and this is just local news unrelated to the article topic. MSJapan (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worldcat reports holdings in two libraries in Indiana.

[34] shows holdings from 1883 to 1891

Manta reports that the current business name is "Benton Review Newspaper".

A Google search on ["Benton Review" site:news.google.com/newspapers] returns a hit for a 1959 "Benton Review Pub Co.", which could be a search term to identify an older business name.

This is sufficient evidence to establish that the topic has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time (WP:N nutshell). Further, topics about reliable sources are valuable to editors, so have a low threshold for inclusion. Unscintillating (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? So two libraries (because that Stjos search replicates WorldCat, where Mishawka already is listed) in the same state that the paper is published in have it (and those libraries are <20 miles apart from each other per WorldCat), no other library anywhere else in the world has it, and one of the two only has 2 years of microfiche [35] from 1875-77, the other has microfiche from 1883-1891, and it's notable? That is a pretty low bar. Also, please do not conflate the business with the product; the article is not about the business. MSJapan (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've hung around WT:V enough to know that the text you bolded has zero weight for whether or not a source is verifiable. If it is published, and the only copy is in a museum under a pyramid in Egypt, it is verifiable. Since there is no notability criteria like "Worldcat only reports two libraries with holdings", you'd have to explain how such a restriction improves the encyclopedia, and since a failure of WP:N allows the topic to remain a redirect and covered in the encyclopedia at Fowler, IN, it is still not a deletion argument. I wonder if you've checked Worldcat for the other three potential titles here, Benton Democrat, Fowler Leader, and the Fowler Republican. Unscintillating (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't talk about verifiability, and that's not the question here. The paper exists. You stated, however, that "the world at large has noticed" and cited notability. The "world at large" has to be greater than a 20 mile radius in the paper's home state. WorldCat is fine for existence, but existence is not notability, and my point is that it's not a notable paper, as I stated in my nom. MSJapan (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MSJapan: Would you mind citing some policy or guideline that the places that reference the Benton Review must be non-local? Thanks, p b p 03:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're going ever further down the spiral of irrelevant minutiae. WorldCat is not a citation source; it's a library holdings catalog. It verifies existence, not "coverage" or notability, or anything else. What is required is a third-party source that discusses the topic, and that has not as yet been found. The fact that the paper is held in two libraries does not establish notability, because that isn't saying anything about the paper. WP:GNG is pretty clear on what is required, and one of those things is reliable third-party sources that have significant coverage. So where are they? MSJapan (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found an 1877 list of newspapers at University of North Texas that lists two more Fowler newspapers from the 1870s. At least one of these is listed in WorldCat, The Fowler era. Unscintillating (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's all very thin. MSJapan makes a decent case for deletion, and Unscintillating can't seem to latch on to a decent argument for keeping it. Of course there is no "lower bar" for newspapers. However, I would argue that a local paper is important, and that the sources (I added a few) agree that the thing existed. I found some circulation numbers, and I think that altogether we should let this scrape by, maybe with a little IAR flavor. Weak keep, therefore. Oh, Nyttend, this isn't your state but it's not far--do you have anything to add? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. I've always had a hard time with notability for publications: we use them all the time, but it's so often hard to find sources about them. As is, I have access to the newspaper itself through newspaperarchive.com, but not to anything about this newspaper. The newspaper guide from Indiana University Libraries says to consult John W. Miller's Indiana Newspaper Bibliography, which provides historical accounts of all Indiana newspapers published between 1804 and 1980. It's not available online, even with a subscription, so you should have contacted me a week ago, when I was in Bloomington; I could have gone on campus and consulted a printed copy :-) I'm going to advocate keeping because of the recommendation for this book from IU Libraries (three years of grad work there makes me highly confident that they know what they're talking about), ~~but only weak because I've not seen the source in person~~. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS, quick note — newspaperarchive.com lists it as Fowler Benton Review (the URL will work only if you, too, have an active user account with IU), so perhaps that will work as an alternative search term. Nyttend (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PPS, History of Benton County, Indiana (1987), History of Benton County, Indiana (1930), and Annals of Benton County (1925) likely have coverage of this publication, since county histories (especially in sparsely populated rural counties, and Benton's one of the least populous in the state) routinely give significant coverage to the local press. And finally, Counties of Warren, Benton, Jasper and Newton, Indiana : historical and biographical (1883) does give coverage to what was then an eight-year-old publication; page 291 provides a discussion of the newspaper's history. Striking my "weak" because I'm indeed seeing the kind of coverage that's useful for this kind of thing; I have no reason to doubt that this is a notable publication. By the way, Drmies, I know a little about Benton County; four of the five images at National Register of Historic Places listings in Benton County, Indiana are mine :-) Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly looking better, although I feel that the historical info of the business is more on the side of WP:V, and I'm vacillating on whether that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. My general thought is that notability shouldn't be a struggle to meet, and if it is, then maybe the subject isn't notable. It is, however, sometimes a matter of finding the right source (which is a burden of proof that ideally should be met before an article is created).

Nevertheless, as we don't seem to have a bar, something is better than nothing, and these are secondary sources, so we're heading in the right direction. Is there any chance of actually getting the info out of the Indiana Newspaper Bibliography? If so, I would think that would be substantial enough to be considered significant coverage, and I'd be willing to withdraw the nom on the honor system. MSJapan (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know another editor who's in Bloomington, User:Vmenkov (he attended some IU meetup events), and asked him if he'd help by checking some or all of these books; he replied I'll try to take a look at these books some time next week. 12:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Works for me, then. Withdraw. MSJapan (talk) 17:50, 24 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August Walk[edit]

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

NN band. Claimed they charted in the Irish rock charts at #19 in late 2015, but I checked IRMA from Sept-Dec., and found nothing. I think they conflated real charts with iTunes, and that's a vendor chart we don't use. If an indie band hit #19 on a country-wide chart, they'd have a lot more than a Facebook page. MSJapan (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found that would indicate notability. --Michig (talk) 06:26, 17 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 09:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above Aust331 (talk) 19:31, 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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa A. Crosby[edit]

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

Non notable and promotional .This is an advertisement, or more precisely an academic cv making do as an advertisement. The honors listed include every scholarhip from undergraduate years on,but nothing of major or national scope. The list of publications looks impressive, and the most cited has 107 cites a/c GScholar, but they are almost all of them unimportant review articles of the sort associate professors write and get cited in medicine, where everyone cites everything. The article was written by "Mps doctor" who has written a number of similar now deleted articles on plastic surgeons. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 17 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 09:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is an academic spam article in almost its purest form; worse than "Who's Who". TNT at minimum. Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment, creator is Memorial Plastic Surgery, a substantial contributor is Mpsdoctor, as Crosby is a principal of Memorial Plasic Surgery, this appears to be a case of WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another article on a non-notable plastic surgeon. We seem to have an awful lot of these.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Senator Murphy gun control filibuster[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this is a prime example of an article that falls afoul of recentism. As noted on the talk page, this is one of only two articles on filibusters in the entirety of Wikipedia; the other is 2008 Parnell–Bressington filibuster, which broke a national (Australian) record. This one doesn't even come close. At best, it should have a paragraph or or two in a related article, probably 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. ansh 666 04:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 04:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 04:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm on the fence about this one. Filibuster in the United States Senate would be a decent home for it, and I'm surprised that even Strom Thurman's filibuster doesn't have an article. At the same time, I could see an equally compelling argument to just create articles for those other filibusters. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the inherent pointlessness of the words. They're designed to waste time, so summarizing them (if even possible) just wastes space. The thing they're stalling is often meaningful, and the results can be, too. But everything about the thing itself is nothing. If it wasn't against the rules, they could hum the same tune (or even not). Can't hum a real speech. It's why Wikipedia has a ton of those. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge. I don't think Wikipedia needs new filibuster pages, although mentioning it briefly as part of describing some historical filibusters of note on the main page for the US Senate filibuster could be worthy, I would leave it up to the editors for that page. Honestly I would be just as supportive of doing so for the one filibuster page older than this one, but I am not so motivated as to nominate doing so. I think the majority of the content about this filibuster specifically that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and ongoing editorial review process should be merged with Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and further added there after the lifetime of this article. I even made a statement about how such a merger is one of the examples for why we actually need to keep that page, which is facing its own AfD, on its AfD page. Sumstream (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge- I don't think we need a separate article for an individual filibuster, and that this topic can be adequately covered in other existing articles including Chris Murphy (Connecticut politician) and the Filibuster in the United States Senate. articles.--TommyBoy (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now There is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument here which should be avoided as there is nothing stopping anyone from creating articles for other notable events. This leaves WP:NOTNEWS in the argument, I think we should wait and see before outright deletion. If this filibuster accomplishes anything notable then WP:LASTING would apply. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand it correctly, WP:OSE, it most is saying to avoid comparisons based solely on the existence or lack thereof of articles that are similar in some way. It mentions how it can be appropriate to consider, as only one factor, the total consistency within a category on the encyclopedia, here it would be "filibusters" while in WP:OTHERSTUFF its example is Star Wars main characters. That was all I was trying to do and my delete and merge suggestion was based on this having its own article seeming to be recentism when all of its good information (I am not actually meaning anything currently on it would or should need to be trimmed) could be located between the US Senate article the Chris Murphy article the shooting reactions page or the shooting page itself if the reactions page does not survive. If this event became so notable and with an actual lasting impact such that the information for it could not fit on those pages, then even I would not mind it being kept either. I don't feel like the information is lost or hidden by this not having its own article and the information can be as readily accessed in those other locations, potentially even better so. Strom Thurmond's filibuster is described in detail on all three analogous pages, his Biographical one, the US Senate one, and the article for the Civil Rights Act of 1957. I think all of what Wikipedia needs to know about his filibuster can be satisfied on those three pages, and I feel it would be most appropriate to do the same with Chris Murphy's filibuster here. Sumstream (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on shooting, or to article on Chris Murphy. No lasting impact has been demonstrated here, and this filibuster wasn't even that long. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More sources have been added to demonstrate its notability. Also, now the article 2016 United States House of Representatives sit-in exists. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The impact of this filibuster is still unfolding. AS CNN noted in response to this AFD (kidding, just kidding), The changing politics of gun control [36] , this filibuster "forced a vote" on gun control measures that was unthinkable before Murphy stood up. This, moreover, is not the sort of "routine" event that falls under NOTNEWS. Here's some post-game analysis from Brookings Institute [37], Politico [38].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I created the article; with a really short stub. Almost instantly, experienced editors arrived and built a solid, unbiased, well-sourced article. I regard their edits as a kind of tacit endorsement of notability. And urge editors new to this page not to allow the AFD to discourage you from improving the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but improve the article. These things are preserved on other websites. And prefer the pertinent bits go to Chris Murphy, not Orlando. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Preserve content somehow - preferably via a merge/redirect to gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, but re-title and broaden that page to something like Gun control in the United States since 2012. That page, thus broadened, could discuss legislation passed in response to similar tragedies, such as new California legislation passed after the 2015 San Bernardino shooting, as well as Murphy's filibuster, the Feinstein proposals, etc. Neutrality^talk 15:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly want to support this kind of initiative. My only concern is that I would want Wikipedia's coverage to be focused on factual descriptions and sourced relationships between events. I worry about something that could be more viewed as an "Agenda Timeline" when articles are created to group events by long term intent, like the described "Gun control in the United States since 2012" when the inclusion criteria starts to involve messier motivations and associations internally on the parts of the individuals involved. I similarly wouldn't want a "Ongoing efforts to fully repeal the USA PATRIOT Act" page even if I would be fine with all of the same information that would be put on that page being on Wikipedia spread across the relevant events and parties involved that were described. Sumstream (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As it's only the 8th longest filibuster in US history and others don't have pages, I don't see how this can exist as a standalone at the moment because there is no indication of any lasting impact or significance. If it managed to persuade Congress to change its mind, then maybe but WP:NOTNOW. Could probably be merged into Gun control in the United States, Filibuster, the Orlando shootings page or any other relevant page to preserve the core of it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article shouldn't be deleted. We shouldn't be using WP:OTHERSTUFF as a basis for deletion. We should wait until the filibuster accomplishes anything notable before considering deletion. Tom29739 ^[talk] 18:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you wrote what you meant to say at the end? It's cool if you did, just a bit absurd. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask what is the WP:RUSH here? If there was no potential for growth then yeah but I do not see this as a lost cause. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to rush, just understand why we'd rather consider deleting something after it becomes notable than before. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom29739: The rationale for deletion isn't WP:OSE, it's WP:NOTNEWS; that bit about the other filibusters is providing context for the nomination, not reason for it. ansh 666 22:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - If this article cannot be kept, it should be merged or redirected to another article, such as 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting or Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - look again in say a month? To me it looks notable, but it will then be clearer whether we really need this or not. 82.36.105.25 (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (2016 Orlando nightclub shooting—Chris Murphy (Connecticut politician)—Filibuster in the United States Senate); Per nom and it's very WP:TOOSOON to say. Not even Strom Thurmond, who has the record for the longest filibuster in the U.S. Senate, has a stand alone article for his record filibuster. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 03:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cleary meets WP:N and WP:LASTING. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, add a condensed 1 paragraph summary to Chris Murphy or Gun politics in the United States. Fails WP:RECENTISM and WP:DUE to have this much detail for a one day. This is similar to Rand Paul#113th Congress (2013–15) that only gives one paragraph to his filibuster, not a whole undue article. -- Callinus (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that contrary to assertions here, this event is still unfolding (in today's headlines) WP:RUSH. I have replaced the breaking news tag on the page. As per WP:RUSH I point out that over-zealous deletion, or in this case, an AFD that begins even as a breaking news story develops can DISRUPT the encyclopedia by discouraging editors from expanding/improving articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was kept after 2 AFD discussions with arguments very similar to those in use here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep international notability: Tagesschau [39], Der Spiegel [40], Le Monde [41][42][43], Haaretz [44], Maghress[45], NZ Herald [46], .... --S I 13:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find that we have any articles here about individual senate filibusters, even highly notable ones. The appropriate place for such material is in an article about the subject matter. So if this filibuster results in actual changes in gun law, it should have appropriate mention at Gun politics in the United States. If it doesn't have any actual effect in law, then it is merely a one-day news item, suitable for mention at Chris Murphy (Connecticut politician). P.S. If it is kept as a redirect, it needs a better title. --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable article and it is encyclopedic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.167.198 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some useful info for Murphy's entry and the shooting page and subject pages. Nothing to merit its own entry. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gun violence is one of the biggest issues of this epoch now, and all along Congress has been ineffectual. That this filibuster took place at all is remarkable, not just notable. That the filibuster took place in response to the largest mass shooting attack from a sole shooter is also remarkable. That the filibuster ranks amongst the Top 10 filibusters is further remarkable. Maslowsneeds (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep topic is notable, and is tangentially related to the Orlando article - deserves its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.26.99 (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @E.M.Gregory:I've substantially expanded the article today, addressing some of the concerns regarding deletion. In addition, IMHO there should be more articles about historical filibusters: Thurmond's, Wayne Morse's, Robert Byrd's on the Civil Rights bill and the Iraq war resolution:
In 1953, Morse conducted a filibuster for 22 hours and 26 minutes protesting the Tidelands Oil legislation, which at the time was the longest one-person filibuster in U.S. Senate history (a record surpassed four years later by Strom Thurmond's 24-hour-18-minute filibuster in opposition of the Civil Rights Act of 1957).
These are a vital part of Congressional history. Activist (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY Kudos to User:Activist and others for improving article so that it meets concerns raised here by other editors. I heartily concur that our failure to cover previous major filibusters (except by comparative length) is an oversight that ought to be corrected.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This was not your run-of-the-mill filibuster. It was a notable event for actually resulting in the log jammed opposition to relent and actually allow a vote to happen. That's almost become a once-in-a-generation event in the annals of the United States Senate. There are a lot of notable events that don't have articles at Wikipedia. Absence of such doesn't mean they aren't notable, just that someone never got around to writing them. This one was notable, and the article should be allowed to stand. — Maile (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Per other supporters. This is definitely not a typical filibuster and certainly is a unique event to occur in the history of the gun-control debate within the U.S. Parsley Man (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is not directed at any one specific user. I would want to encourage, generally, people to be careful here to avoid certain arguments such as sounding like the NotabilityDiviner or saying that the article should be kept because you just like gun control. Even though I disagree (but don't think this is the proper place to fully address the issue) regarding how to organize Wikipedia's coverage of filibusters, with E.M.Gregory, I can respect at least the consistency in that argument and don't find it to be WP:OTHERSTUFF just as describing my own views on the context of how this information is arranged (agreeing with how it is with most cases now, a 3 article inclusion setup of roughly politician/event/filibuster in that parliamentary body) is not either. Please fully discuss your rationale and think about it from the perspective of a detached encyclopedic arrangement of the information how it happened, not how it could benefit a specific political objective like gun control. Sumstream (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to show my rookie editor side and attempt a correction here. I think I may have actually been meaning inheriting notability, and not just liking gun control. I didn't mean that editors were arguing because of being fans of gun control, but that it seemed (to me) that there was an over attribution of notability of gun control to necessitating the existence of this article, not actually editors' liking of it, I apologize for that. I still think the information for this filibuster event itself is best located elsewhere as I've alredy stated. Sumstream (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep but unsure. It does seem to pass WP:NEVENT based on the way I'm reading it. Kinda hard to know about the "lasting effect" at this point, but it did accomplish the goal of obtaining votes on measures and has probably inspired today's sit-in by John Lewis. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The subject is notable and it seems to be part of a wider effort by Democratic Party members with regards to gun control (it has nothing to do with me either opposing or supporting the cause). It was followed up by House of Representatives sit-in led by Rep. John Lewis.

Overall, if we are discussing the notability of filibusters, especially those that lasted longest while being used as a political tool in decisive moments, wikipedians should create more filibuster articles (those that are notable and meet the criteria for inclusion) instead of deleting and/or merging of this particular filibuster. --ReordCræft (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly encourage editors to do so as it is an interesting topic regarding the aftermath. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree wholeheartedly, the lack of articles for historic filibusters is a void in this encyclopedia if anything. Removing a fairly well done article on a notable, and successful, filibuster (which can certainly be improved even further does nothing to improve the content of Wikipedia. If anything, this article could serve as an able model for the creation of articles on both future, and historic filibusters of note.--Ministre d'État (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Chris Murphy (Connecticut politician). We need to see coverage over a period of time to satisfy WP:GNG. No objection to recreation if we see that, but I'm quite sold that we will (except as a point of trivia or in the context of talking about Murphy or the Orlando shooting -- hence merging). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that with past events ongoing coverage counts towards notability (although it is not required). But with recent events over the longue durée is obviously is not required.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and only covers things with lasting significance. That said, we do sometimes keep articles on current events when it's very clear there will be lasting significance. So by default we should not create/keep news stories, but in those rare cases when it's very clear that it would be a waste of time/effort to delete, passage of time can be dismissed as a formality. I'm not sold that this is one of those where we know where will be lasting significance. I appreciate that others disagree. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that ~~according to that reasoning we would~~ we do not need to delete 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Ammend my comment with apologies to @Rhododendrites:E.M.Gregory (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Not only does that statement on its own seem very WP:OSE the notability of the two events is incomparable. I would first point to how this entire filibuster event is best characterized (as this article itself does in its first sentence) as a reaction to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. There are other reasons, such as people there being killed in record breaking numbers, however an exhaustive listing of such reasoning is unnecessary because I do not see how you are not arguing WP:OTHERSTUFF. Sumstream (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: To make sense of this response I have to assume you only read part of my last comment, which could be summarized as "in rare cases we decide to keep articles because there's overwhelming evidence that there will be lasting coverage -- this is not one". Do you really think (a) I would not consider the Orlando shooting among those rare cases, or (b) that this is anywhere near the Orlando shooting in terms of certainty of lasting coverage? I also have to gripe about these bolded "Note:" tags. "Note:" implies that you are commenting for, say, a closer to read and not actually engaging with me in discussion. It has the effect of "look at the invalidity of the comment above" rather than a direct response. I know you don't intend it this way, and it's not against any rules I'm aware of, but I have to express that it's difficult not to resent a back-and-forth in which the other person is bolding their own responses as quasi metacommentary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododentrites, as I see it, what you and I have here is a difference of opinion. I see the sources and supporting the notability of this event, i.e., as demonstrating that it is not "routine" and that it it is having a an impact on a national political conversation. You do not. But please note that WP:LASTING states: "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation."E.M.Gregory (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:NOTNEWS states: "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." What is discouraged is "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities."E.M.Gregory (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: The subject is notable, especially as a it played a large role in leading to 2016 United States House of Representatives sit-in, the amount of coverage it continues to generate, and the growing significance of guns as an issue in both the forthcoming presidential and congressional elections. This article has strong content as is, and could certainly be built-on and improved as well, I believe that Good Article status could certainly be attainable. That being said, the page should certainly be moved to something like "2016 US Senate gun control filibuster", or at the very least have "Senator Murphy" changed to "Chris Murphy"--Ministre d'État (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved boldly to Chris Murphy gun control filibuster as per several comments above, and because it is usual to refer to filibusters by the name of the Senator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For same reasons as Ministre above.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly passes WP:GNG and the article is written in an encyclopedic manner with enough third party references. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:12, 24 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) 10:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bioluminescence phytoplankton[edit]

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

In addition to a grammatically incorrect title, the "sources" in this were all fake. One was the NatGeo main page, the other two were commercial links. None of them contained anything even remotely related to the article. We already have Bioluminescence, and there is no value to a redirect from a grammatically incorrect title or a merge of unsourced information (which I'm reasonably sure we can't do anyway). MSJapan (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sources, which have been rather unhelpfully removed from the article, are not fake but were linked to the top level of the three web sites. It is very easy to find the three immediate sources.[47][48][49] These are not great sources but the topic is a legitimate one.[50] I suggest a better title would be Bioluminescence in plankton which seems to be a topic we are not covering well at present (but see Dinoflagellate#Bioluminescence). A previous PROD was correctly removed with the suggestion that the content was merged with Bioluminescence or Phytoplankton but I think an full article on a somewhat broader topic (linked to from both articles) would be more helpful to the reader. It is sad (and completely unsatisfactory) that there has been no attempt to discuss any of this on the talk page. Thincat (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is not an appropriate title, even for a redirect. The text is not usable for anything -- whether sourced or not, it is such terrible English that for anyone who knows the subject it would be easier to write a new article, and for anyone who doesn't know the subject, it would be necessary to find enough sources to write one, and in the end it would be easier not to look at this. Perhaps someone who does know the subject could create a stub titled whatever. (Is the reduplication of "bioluminescence" with "phytoplankton" really necessary? What's wrong with "luminescent phytoplankton"?) Imaginatorium (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I appreciate Thincat's argument that there might be a notable topic behind all this, neither the title nor the content are salvageable. I do not see the point of keeping, moving the page and blanking it. I know there is genuine debate among editors about whether a poor article is better than no article at all ("redlinks are an incentive to writers!") but the wrong title surely tips the balance towards WP:TNT. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and Move~~ change to Delete I agree that the title is grammatically incorrect, but it appears the science is correct. The article's creator is most likely a newbie and not familiar with Wikipedia's writing and editing standards. The intended topic appears to be notable because it has received significant coverage in the press, i.e, reliable sources. Also, User:Thincat showed that sources are available, which includes a peer reviewed article. On Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure it is recommended that if a topic is notable but the writing is poor that it should be kept. I am going to rewrite it into at least an acceptable stub and add sources. I just don't have time at the moment. If anyone wishes to jump in feel free ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my Ivote to Delete because this topic has already been sufficiently covered on Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. This article is an attempt to redo what we already have such as Bioluminescence, dinoflagellates, phytoplankton, luciferin, luciferase and so on. This article peripherally touches on the science, but our articles are already well written and (obviously) scientifically accurate, with plenty of coverage. Hence, there is no need for this article or its grammatically incorrect titling. I'm sorry to say this, but it is ridiculous having this article on Wikipedia. The newbie author that wrote this might wish to consider reading Wikipedia's Five Pillars before doing any more editing (~~needs to start by~~). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see it as a content fork with content that is of (much) less quality than what we already have in other articles. With the title being wrong, a redirect is also off the table. DeVerm (talk) 21:00, 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) 10:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AVB-7.62[edit]

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

Non-notable Soviet/Czechoslovak weapon series, no reliable sources found, though searches in Russian/Czech may help. Created by User:DroneZone, a suspected sock of ancient User:Jetwave Dave. ansh 666 04:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 04:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 04:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 04:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 04:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...one of a kind prototype, nothing more than firearms trivia.--RAF910 (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable militaria. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Berty[edit]

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

Unsourced, no indication of meeting WP:NFILM. Dan arndt (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now expanded and sourced. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

some looking beyond the article:

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

year,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)

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Thank You Berty Tennyson Cooray Bandu Samarasinghe Anusha Damayanthi Dilhani Ekanayake EAP Films

Weak keep per just meeting WP:NF. While yes, a number of links show this 2010 Sri Lankan film as existing and view-able, I did find a few sources speaking toward the project itself. As I always welcome assistance, if anyone comes up with more English or non-English sources, please let me know so they can be considered as well. And note: Not wishing to do just a drive-by, the article is now better than than brand new stub that was first brought to AFD. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It looks better than the original stub. However one reference is from the film's website (WP:Primary), another is a passing mention. The Sinhalese is a duplicate of the other reference. Still doesn't satisfy WP:NFILM. Dan arndt (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Thanks for checking back. While not for asserted notability, the "official website" is okay for WP:V under WP:ABOUTSELF, and I was unable to determine the substantial Sinhalese source as duplicating either 'Sunday Times or Daily News. I will continue to look and will hope an editor from Australia (2010 premiere) or Sri Lanka (country of production) will come forward with sources I was unable to find. My 'keep' is so far weak only after all. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also found a second Sunday Times and a 2009 casting call in Daily News addressing the topic (directly and in detail, even if not "substantial")... and Highbeam archives a Daily Mirror article. Still "weak" but still digging. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Sunday Times & Daily News articles are hardly sufficient to establish notability. Appreciate your searches, I've tried myself but can't find anything that would justifying keeping this article. Dan arndt (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the Sunday Times article counts as one reliable source., needs a review.Atlantic306 (talk) 02:19, 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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Škoda M1909 machine gun[edit]

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

Non-notable Austro-Hungarian firearm (made in modern-day Czech Republic), couldn't find any reliable sources. Created by distant-past sockmaster User:Jetwave Dave, who (as far as I can tell) was blocked for stuff like this. ansh 666 03:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 03:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 03:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 03:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...made in small numbers, and the only reason it was made, was because it was the only gun available at the time. As soon as a better design appeared it was dropped.--RAF910 (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- citations include http://i2.guns.ru/ (?). Non notable militaria. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 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) 10:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Captiva iii[edit]

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

WP:HOAX. There is no such thing as a "Captiva III" - according to the article on the Chevrolet Captiva, the car has been in production since 2006, and has no numerical variants. The article is unsourced; it was "sourced" to a WP article on GM in Uzbekistan and a 2013 PDF owner's manual for the car, neither of which are even pertinent. "Captiva III" GHits are for a different product. No reason to redirect, nothing verifiable to merge. MSJapan (talk) 03:51, 17 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 08:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I have heard no such thing. Class455fan1 (talk) 23:39, 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) 10:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LAPA CM-02[edit]

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

Non-notable Brazilian firearm. No reliable sources found, though Portuguese-language search may help. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 03:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 03:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 03:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 03:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...one of a kind prototype, nothing more than firearms trivia.

Delete - can't find a single reliable secondary source. DeVerm (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable militaria. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 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. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling 7.62[edit]

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

Non-notable British firearm; no reliable secondary sources found. Created by User:Ctway sock. Possible redirect to company article. ansh 666 03:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 03:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 03:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 03:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...one of a kind prototype, nothing more than firearms trivia.--RAF910 (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only sources I can find are listings or not reliable, so the article does not meet our notability guidelines. DeVerm (talk) 02:15, 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. And salted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mitesh Kumar Patel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

3rd AfD - Subject still lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt as I myself had encountered this but waited for deletion in case it was immediately removed or improvements were made (which the latter only rarely happens of course), there's basically nothing different from the past AfDs thus I suggest salting considering we would certainly not wanted another (I would've basically suggested salting the last time). I should also note that the 2012 AfD clearly comparably shows there has been no other works or information since that time so there's of course presumably nothing else better at all. SwisterTwister talk 03:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In fairness, the 2012 AfD resulted in a WP:SOFTDELETE. AllyD (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have sought to source this as much as possible, but even if one was to use the self-contributed IMDB biography, the vast majority of this article would have BLP sourcing issues; presumably the WP:SPA editor had access to primary information. As to the key question of notability, the 2013 press coverage of his announced intent to make a biopic of Narendra Modi strikes me as passing coverage. Nor do the listed awards for "The Man in the Maze" (review found here) seem notable in themselves, or inheritable. I don't think there is enough to meet WP:FILMMAKER or any wider biographical notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 17 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 08:58, 17 June 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 08:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 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 withdrawn. Clearly I've made a blue here. Appreciate the constructive feedback. Jenks24 (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Knightly[edit]

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

Not convinced that the subject has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Additionally, there are COI and copyvio issues. Jenks24 (talk) 02:52, 17 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 08:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject certainly passes WP:PROF, on several counts. Being an IEEE Fellow is enough to satisfy WP:PROF#C3. Very high GS citabilty results, several significant wards. Frequently mentioned in the news media as an expert on wireless communication. There are also examples of specific in-depth coverage, such as here [51]. Regarding COI/copyvio issues, by looking at the article history and the article talk page, it is clear that last year somebody from the subject's department created this page, while being new to Wikipedia and not quite knowing what they were doing. So they just tried to copy-paste the material from the subject's bio profile page at the department, creating a copyvio issue. While that situation was frustrating, the editor in question has not edited since July 2015. If they do return and resume problematic editing, they should be given a hard slap first, and then a block. But hopefully that won't be necessary. The mistake here was a typical newbie mistake. The COI issue does remain, but since the subject is clearly notable, I think the article deserves to stay at the end. Nsk92 (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics). He was elected a fellow of the IEEE in 2009 and is a department chairman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarryGrandma (talk • contribs)
Question. Does the nominator think that the subject's GS h-index of 59 has any bearing on his notability? Xxanthippe (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Snow keep. Passes multiple WP:PROF criteria as already detailed above. If there are copyvio problems they are not so serious as to require deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Nominator is referred to WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Easy keep due to h-index, IEEE Fellow designation. I noticed that he was promoted to full professor at Rice ten years ago. Rice is no mom-and-pop institution, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many full professors there that fall short of WP:PROF. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:30, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carrot Top Records[edit]

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

Contested prod. For the current references in the article as of nomination, the first three are self-published sources, the fourth is a blog, and the fifth does not even mention, let alone cover in any depth, the article subject. I've searched for better references, and expected it to at least be possible to find some, but have come up entirely empty. Accordingly, I believe that we do not have any reference material to sustain this article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Clearly a significant label with a roster of notable artists. There are sources out there, e.g. [52], [53], and several other briefer mentions. Not in-depth coverage by any means, but I think it's a shame if a significant-enough label can't be covered here (satisfying WP:V) because of a guideline like GNG. --Michig (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the roster of notable artists. Unless someone can point me to a notability guideline for record labels that says otherwise, I will assume that having several notable artists on a label makes a label notable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TonyTheTiger, I raised this question on WT:CORP and was directed to WP:NOTINHERITED by Masem, who also said that "just releasing notable records doesn't make the label notable" and that articles about labels do need to meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP to be notable. That said, I added multiple sources to the article already that I think are enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Everymorning (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everymorning, Please voice an opinion in this discussion?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everymorning, are you aware you are suppose to state support or oppose in bold to make a clear statement.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I've been busy lately. I think this article should be kept and therefore vote keep. Everymorning (talk) 18:52, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Rouillon[edit]

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

There's nothing currently to suggest any solid independent notability and the Demographics at the community's artice shows it would've had about 100,000 residents or so at the time and my searches have found no better sources at all. There is a Spanish Wiki article but that is also unsourced and not entirely informative, so unless native information and sources can be found, I'm not seeing anything noticeably convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 9 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 07:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the mayor of such a major city (now with well over 1 million people) is notable no matter what its population at the time he was mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are absolutely no sources. We should not keep any articles with no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think I found a scholarly source that confirms the subject was appointed as mayor (http://historiapolitica.com/datos/biblioteca/santafe_rold%C3%A1n.pdf). Google Translate is a little unclear, but suggests that the subject was appointed as mayor of Rosario. Enos733 (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While Rosario is certainly a large enough place that a mayor would be eligible to keep a properly sourced article, no city of any size, not even Tokyo, London or New York City, ever hands its mayors an exemption from having to be reliably sourced. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can find the proper sourcing for it, but he doesn't get to stick around in an entirely unsourced state. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The source found by Enos733 is sufficient as a reliable source for his mayorship and thereby the claim to notability. Other basic vitals are available in geneological sources, such as http://www.genealogiaderosario.com.ar/pdf/CEGeHR_Boletin_nro_5.pdf and http://www.genealogiafamiliar.net/getperson.php?personID=I108113&tree=BVCZ . Also dug up this: http://www.acciontv.com.ar/soca/soci/fotos3/rosario.htm, which corroborates his role in the city, although provides little detail. We may want to trim the article down to something smaller, but the core claim of being mayor, socialite and businessman can be reliably sourced. Avram (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It takes more than simply being able to verify that a person existed, and genealogy sources don't assist notability at all. So in terms of what's needed for referencing, none of this is enough. Bearcat (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have a solid claim to notability by virtue of being mayor. There is one reliable source already presented for that claim. Other information on the page also needs reliable sources, such as the published genealogy sources, which give this article a fighting chance of having more than a stub of content, even if they don't make the notability any more solid. I would still like to see some further documentation of the subject's mayorship, but unless someone pulls up the La Capital archives for the period in question, we may have some trouble doing so. Avram (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 01:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to Google Translate, this source appears to include a biographical sketch that begins "Alfredo J. Rouillon (1875-1951) was also a native of Rosario where he worked as a stockbroker . He was municipal mayor ( 1922-1923 ), member of the board of the Stock Exchange and chairman or member of several companies . . ." All I can see is this brief snippet but it seems very likely that the full source verifies many of the claims in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added that reference to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the added reference, although the article needs more and some work, the person is notable enough to have a page. Chase (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed that it needs work, but, aside from the evidence presented by Cullen328, an online search found that there are streets, monuments, and institutions in Argentina named after the subject (1, 2, 3, 4). Aust331 (talk) 12:21, 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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NSW Bird Atlassers Inc.[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Provides no sources for verification or establishment of notability, only a list of books they have published. Promotional tone and creator's conflict of interest seem like WP:PROMO to me. ubiquity (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be an unremarkable organization not meeting WP:ORG; page seems promotional in intent. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete 1 gnews hit. Cited coverage is in specialist bird books rather than wider coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 12:48, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. Looks like it's pretty obvious this is going to be kept... (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garay Asadov[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Appears to be an article about a non-notable soldier, who fails WP:SOLDIER. I couldn't find much out there that could possibly save this article, and the subject has a lack of reliable coverage overall, failing WP:GNG. Omni Flames (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, at least. The article makes a strong claim of notability, namely that this person was a Hero of the Soviet Union, that country's highest honor. That meets WP:SOLDIER in my view. I think that we should assume good faith of the new editor, Runle031, and help them learn how to provide references for the series of unreferenced stubs they have created. I will support deletion if an experienced Russian speaking editor concludes that that the article is a hoax. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a little difficult for me to determine which are reliable sources, but there are several that attest to him being a Hero of the Soviet Union,[54][55][56][57][58] which would automatically satisfy SOLDIER. An Azerbaijani government site does note that there is a "memorial house" named for him in Aggol National Park [59] and the State Art Gallery of Azerbaijan mentions a statue of him created by Zivar Mammadova.[60] Clarityfiend (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SOLDIER and give the new editor time to mold the article with references. Chase (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SOLDIER - Asadov is notable as a Hero of the Soviet Union, a recipient of the highest award of his country. Kges1901 (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because Hero of the Soviet Union passes WP:SOLDIER, but ask the editor who created it to stop creating unsourced stubs with images of dubious copyright status: the image in this article is uploaded as "Own work", which looks highly unlikely. PamD 12:14, 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.