Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 June	21 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HCR Relocation[edit]

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

The one reference to sky news is not enough to justify notability . The others are either unavailable or insubstantial. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I will grant that sky news is a reliable source, and could establish notability on its own. That said, the question I would ask is, is the content referenced to by this RS sufficiently important that it defines the subject enough to sit prominently in the lead? In this case, clearly not. Being approached to redesign a particular system, without a followthrough or anything else, would clearly not be the defining feature of a company. Given that there are no other reliable sources discussing this company, the company is clearly non-notable. Delete. Fieari (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches have found nothing better and there's simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 01:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:GNG on the basis described above. Waggers TALK 10:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:10, 28 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) 10:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arian controversy[edit]

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

The article as it stands is almost entirely WP:Primary Source (90+%?), much of it is essentially listings, and its theme is adequately covered in the article Arianism. It would be simpler and more productive to concentrate on improving this latter article than mounting a major operation to rescue this one — Jpacobb (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and improve. WP:Primary Source is not a reason to delete an entire article. tahc ^chat 00:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Socrates of Constantinople, the most-cited source, wrote 100 years after the fact. While I agree more modern sources should be integrated into this article, it would be quite ridiculous to argue that SoC was a "primary source" that constitutes OR. Should be salvaged per WP:POTENTIAL. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 00:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Plainly and clearly a notable subject. If there's overlap with Arianism, cleanup could be used to bring it more into line with Summary Style... basically, this is a major part of the subject of Arianism, and I fully believe that just the historical controversy is worthy of an article, which should be summarized in the main Arianism article and then expanded on here. Both Arianism and its controversy have PLENTY to be written about them. Fieari (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nom failed to make an appropriate rationale per WP:DEL so it doesn't matter. I would point out that WP:POTENTIAL is just an essay and I'd counter with WP:JUNK. That said, the subject is notable, the content is cited, and the citations are verifiable with a couple trips to the library. It's an ugly article and re-creates most of what Arianism already covers but I don't think there's a WP:NUKEANDPAVE argument here. I'd prefer to see an interested editor userfy this mess and re-work it but that isn't likely. The problem with inclusionism is that !voting keep while admitting the article has real shortfalls results in subpar articles. Deletionism removes the offending content and there's no mess left to clean up. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consolidate appropriately. I agree we don't need separate articles, and one should likely be a redirect to the other... but merging seems such a better option than deleting one, especially since per WP:CWW we can't use deleted material without a lot of extra attribution work. Merging one to the other--and I have no strong preference which--is clearly a better solution. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- An article using contemporary chronicles and the like is actually relying on the most reliable sources. Anything more recent can only be a commentary on those. A bit of historiography and the odd citation of modern works providing such commentary might be useful, not no way should we even think of deleting as substantial and well-sourced article as this one. In the early days of WP, the use of primary sources was deplored, as it is liable to produce WP:OR (commonly called unreliable inventions), but WP has moved on a long way from that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 28 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) 06:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magic: The Gathering rules[edit]

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

This is basically just an expanded game guide, and it is not necessary for the general understanding of the subject. There is already a perfectly adequate section in the main article (Magic: The Gathering#Gameplay) that gives a general enough of an overview without going overboard. Compared to similar articles like Rules of chess, there is a lack of any commentary on the rules themselves, and it is unlikely much of anything exists covering that aspect of the topic. TTN (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The only differences in structure, language, tone, and content that I see between Rules of chess and this article is that Rules of chess contains a section on the history of the rules, a section on tournament rules, and that the rules are condensed and more concise. It is my understanding that the rules of MtG have undergone changes over time, and that articles have been written about these changes, so a history section could be added. MtG has extensive varieties of tournament types and tournament rules, so a tournament section could be added. And while the rules explanation in this article is a bit detailed and overly expanded, a cleanup could be performed to tighten it up to better fit our summary style. As cleanup and expansion appears to be possible, and given that the current text is salvageable, I must !vote keep. Fieari (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Fieari actually points out why the rules of chess article is notable on its own - it goes into a higher-level discussion of the origin and changes of the rules, and how those apply to tourney play. Additionally, there have been numerous books devoted to chess strategy and gameplay understanding, while there might be some books for MtG but nowhere near the same volume; most of MtG's meta-strategy is generally documented in blog and forum posts and not in RSes. There definitely does need to be some discussion of the core rules to understand how the game is played, which the main MtG page covers, but the level of detail here is unwarranted for WP. A supplimentary link to either a WOTC page on the rules or a wiki devoted to the rules would be an appropriate EL. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - AfD is not cleanup. Here at AfD, we don't debate articles on their CURRENT merits, but on their POTENTIAL merits. We don't delete articles for sucking, but for demonstrably never being able to not suck in the future due to lack of notability. Fieari (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Almafeta (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Google Scholar references readily available through the find sources tool, above, seem to meet GNG for discussion of rules vs. just the game itself. I'd still suggest an extensive trim and refocus, but I think the notability is sufficient for a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Scholar gives me 8 hits, and none of those are RS works that given significant discussion of the MtG rules - they name drop them but not describe or dissect them in detail. Also, while I'm 99% confident this article passes the the GNG (guideline), it fail WP:NOT (policy) without the type of discussion that the rules of chess has to distinguish it from a simple how-to guide. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fieari's argument. This could definitely use a rewrite but it's not a game guide and does not need to be deleted. Khaim (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 22:10, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Vancier[edit]

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

Article fails to meet WP:BIO and WP:ANYBIO standards. A search turns up some secondary sources regarding the subject, mostly consisting of articles regarding his arrest and links to YouTube videos but no significant coverage from credible and independent sources. While his activities and imprisonment made the news, that alone doesn't seem enough to warrant an article. Furthermore, the Jewish Task Force appears to be solely an online based political organization of little to no significance. Having your own web site, a public access show in New York and making YouTube videos does not establish notability or relevance. The page also has a history of vandalism. NaturalistView (talk) 22:51, 20 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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough evidence to back up his notability. The history of vandalism, is in fact a history of whitewashing the article. To my opinion, this AfD is another attempt of whitewashing as this is only the second/third edit of a brand new editor. I even give a sockpuppet alert as the new editor seems well acquainted to the rules and policies, much more then you can expect from a new user. The Banner talk 08:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep A convicted terrorist who easily passes WP:GNG. Article should probably be moved to Chaim Ben Pesach, the name by which (I think) he's better known, as opposed to his legal name. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The ample reliable and verifiable sources about the subject passes the notability standard. The argument about vandalism is a good reason to protect the page, but a very poor reason to delete it. With an edit history of three edits, two of which are related to this AfD, it appears that we're dealing with an WP:SPA or an out-and-out sockpuppet. Alansohn (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and support move to Chaim Ben Pesach per WP:COMMONNAME. Pburka (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG. --Dcirovic (talk) 16:46, 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. KaisaL (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kishoo Barkur[edit]

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

No news articles about this person, and references are WP:SPAM links. Article does not meet basic WP:N. JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is only mentioned in passing in reliable source. No in depth coverage. Meatsgains (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are some awards but, after examining everything here, there's still nothing actually suggestive of the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteEven were their better documentation, the body of work is not sufficient for notability. DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 30 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 AIESEC. obvious way to handle this DGG ( talk ) 15:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AIESEC European Congress[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Not independently notable. Suggest merger with AIESEC Rathfelder (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Merge with AIESEC as this doesn't pass WP:EVENT. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 02:48, 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 delete. KaisaL (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marc van Gale[edit]

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

Appears to be another non-notable DJ. Only sources are his own page and a list of DJs from 2011. Page creator never added additional information or edits after creation, or after curation tags requesting improvements were added. JamesG5 (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:15, 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 to The Brentford Trilogy. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 03:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Pooley[edit]

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

There doesn't appear to be anything to properly establish notability for this character. Even if there are references, they would be better used on the main series article. TTN (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and making the name a redirect to book series article, The Brentford Trilogy. This is uncited and not-notable for a stand alone article. Material could be transferred but it's totally uncited and since Wikipedia cannot cite to itself, it would be better for one to make any additions with RS cites to the book article. Kierzek (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without deletion, to The Brentford Trilogy. Above commentator's advice violates WP:CWW, and a redirect without deletion is a simple way to allow non-admins to merge previously contributed non-notable content if so desired. Jclemens (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced of the value of the redirect, and I'm seeing little worth merging, especially given what a weak article The Brentford Trilogy is. Sorry. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:08, 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. Fails subject specific guideline with no indication of wider GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Barnes[edit]

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

One news article as a primary source. Nothing else about this particular person could be found. Does not meet WP:N. JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, not notable. Only articles I could find were newspaper articles written by him, not about him, and even as a newspaper columnist, still not notable enough. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The only reference within the article itself is, in fact, an article about him, and not by him. Please see: "Navy's Barnes is a student-athlete role model March 29, 2008 by Maria Burns Ortiz ESPN" Fieari (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is just way too short for me to even consider keeping it. 2602:306:3357:BA0:81FC:22A7:8971:ACBD (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Current article length is not, has never been, and never will be a deletion criteria. Fieari (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG; not notable for stand alone article. The first reference cited is a passing feel good piece and the second is barely anything. Remember Wikipedia is not a newspaper and I don't see any lasting noteworthiness. Kierzek (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is the ESPN reference (in the article, and linked in my above reply), but I found one more: [1]. Given that these two articles are reliable sources, are not merely local-only small newspapers, are independent from the subject, and the articles are ABOUT the subject, not merely mentions, I have to !vote keep, and dispute the !votes for delete listed above. Pinging @SanAnMan:, @Kierzek:. Fieari (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He gets short mention in what amounts to a human interest story, but getting written up in a short human interest story is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page deletions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:43, 28 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Kerwin[edit]

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

Article created by a blocked user. Only two references are being used as primary sources. One reference is a basically a WP:SPAM website containing personal contact information, and the other, a Wikipedia article being mirrored as a source per WP:CIRC. I could only find one news article about this person, but overall, does not meet WP:BIO JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads like a promotion piece and not notable for stand alone article per GNG. Kierzek (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable architect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:42, 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) 17:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drowtales[edit]

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

Non-notable webcomic/website. All sources are primary and everything outside of the lead is a plot dump. Previous AfD is from 2005 and most Keep votes centered on WP:other stuff Argento Surfer (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Sure Hmm, the best result I can find from google news is an offhand mention from ComicsAlliance, which I would consider a RS for this subject. The trouble is that it's not a direct mention or discussion of the webcomic, but rather talking about another webcomic that is "part of the Drowtales network", and talking about it in a way that simply implies that everyone knows about Drowtales, and implying that Drowtales is notable by saying that this other webcomic must be notable by association with Drowtales. That puts me in a tricky place... I normally require at least a review. I can't find a review, but a reliable source seems to be strongly implying that notability is established anyway. What to do? I'm not sure... I guess that's all I can say. I'm not sure. Fieari (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There have been published books of the comic see here. - Also, there's plenty of reviews, if you look for them. 1 2 3 4 5. The product is not just a webcomic or published comic. It's a long running trans-medial world, including audio-books with voice actors, composed music and at least one video game. Google give me 62.500 results on a "Drowtales" search from my location. I dare say, there is around 100.000 articles on the enWiki with less notable works of fiction or culture than DrowTales... Anjoe (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of a physical copy doesn't convey notability. The reviews linked aren't from what I'd call reliable critics. Longevity doesn't convey notability. WP:other stuff is not a valid reason to keep. None of your points satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (web) Argento Surfer (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination was a joke, right? Almafeta (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, and your comment has done nothing to change my mind. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a pretty straightforward delete. I've only been able to find one offhand mention of the website by a reliable source (as mentioned by Fieari above), so it's impossible to write anything about the website without just going into original research. Suggested sources by Anjoe above are all self-published (be they personal blogs, forum posts, or Youtube videos), meaning we can't meaningfully assign value to them, nor can we deem them reliable for facts. Unless there are print sources available that discuss this website, there is simply nothing to work with. The article doesn't meet general notability guidelines, and should therefore be deleted. ~Mable (chat) 07:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When I was first a wikipedian, a decade or so ago, community standards regarding webcomics and other internet things were that notability was a bit more subjective, and factors tended to include alexis rankings, community size, and google prominence. Fan pages and forums posts were counted towards notability criteria. These days, the community has shifted its standards towards the strict letter of the WP:GNG. Drowtales would clearly and obviously qualify as notable under the old community standards, but looks like it is on far more shaky grounds given contemporary community standards. I wonder whether the standards shift really makes for a better encyclopedia in all situations... would returning to a looser standard for popular internet things be helpful? I mean, notability is all about whether a wide/broad audience would be interested in learning more details about the subject. That said, strictly applying WP:GNG as we do now does make for better sourcing and referencing, so I see why we do it.

I'm not sure where I was going with this, but I think discussing our standards is useful to this particular conversation. Fieari (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the idea that webcomics should be somekind of special exception at all. There is a variety of sources that occasionally discuss webcomics, and this one isn't discussed by a single one of them. The big issue is: the information on Wikipedia is a result of collecting information made available by reliable sources. Wikipedia generally doesn't do original research. If not a single reliable source discusses some topic, how could we as Wikipedia ever write anything about that topic? ~Mable (chat) 10:13, 29 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. KaisaL (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

123telugu.com[edit]

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

Non-notable entertainment website. I can't find anything other than social media accounts and listings pages. Cloudbound (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the only source cited which isn't automatically generated confirms nothing more than that the site once streamed some event and I can't find anything better. I don't see any evidence of passing WP:WEB. Hut 8.5 21:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I examined both the information and sources but found nothing actually convincing, a million dollar-estimated website is especially not convincing for Wikipedia, nothing yet for a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 29 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) 06:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Punyi Pukur[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:TVSHOW. Non notable Indian TV serial of West Bengal state with no national audience. Lukerian (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep' "Star Jalsha is a Bengali language general entertainment television channel based in India..the channel is also distributed worldwide." It aired nationally, no matter how geographically isolated most of the audience was. Nationally aired, WP:N met. Nate • (chatter) 03:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed, Star Jalsha seems to expressly meet WP:TVSHOW. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Though the article does not cite any sources, quick Google search revealed notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aust331 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 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. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaj Aari Kal Bhab[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:TVSHOW. Non notable Indian TV serial of West Bengal state with no national audience. Lukerian (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Star Jalsha is a Bengali language general entertainment television channel based in India..the channel is also distributed worldwide." It aired nationally, no matter how geographically isolated most of the audience was. Nationally aired, WP:N met. Nate • (chatter) 03:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed, if Star Jalsha is indeed the leading or a major Indian Bengali-language cable channel, as its article states, it meets WP:TVSHOW. India is a country of several major language groups. We're not going to penalize the show (or the channel) for not attracting, say, Hindi viewers for a Bengali programme. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 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) 06:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khokababu (TV series)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:TVSHOW. Non notable Indian TV serial of West Bengal state with no national audience. Lukerian (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep "Star Jalsha is a Bengali language general entertainment television channel based in India..the channel is also distributed worldwide." It aired nationally, no matter how geographically isolated most of the audience was. Nationally aired, WP:N met. Nate • (chatter) 02:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed, Star Jalsha seems to expressly meet WP:TVSHOW. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:25, 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) 06:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Jwele Jaai (TV series)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:TVSHOW. Non notable Indian TV serial of West Bengal state with no national audience. Lukerian (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep "Zee Bangla is a Bengali language Cable television channel in India." It aired nationally, no matter how geographically isolated most of the audience was. Nationally aired, WP:N met. Nate • (chatter) 02:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed, Zee Bangla also seems to expressly 'meet the national cable requirements of WP:TVSHOW. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:26, 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) 06:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thik Jeno Love Story[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:TVSHOW. Non notable Indian TV serial of West Bengal state with no national audience. --Lukerian (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Star Jalsha is a Bengali language general entertainment television channel based in India..the channel is also distributed worldwide." It aired nationally, no matter how geographically isolated most of the audience was. Nationally aired, WP:N met. Nate • (chatter) 03:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed, Star Jalsha seems to expressly meet WP:TVSHOW. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:24, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asylum Championship Wrestling ACW[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Not a single references and searches produce nothing of any weight or substance. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only source I can find is by the Colorado Springs Independent, which is a weekly local-only paper, which is not sufficient to establish notability. Fieari (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of any notability. Website found for them has also been deleted. No signs it even exists anymore or was anything that should be on here. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:45, 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 per WP:SNOW and as WP:G11. There's no coverage to suggest notability and I'm also going to salt the page, given that there's a history of sockpuppetry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Turner (Playwright)[edit]

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

Non notable author self published with Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable wrighter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'As per' ...other things he's done aren't enough to get him over the line. Eagleash (talk) 07:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just as G11 as the previous version with the additional factor of the author's sockpuppetry. for (;;) (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to close this as a mixture of G11 and WP:SNOW, given that he seems to be fairly non-notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:47, 27 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Simmons[edit]

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

PROD removed by page's creator. Subject is not significantly notable for anything specific. Meatsgains (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is the mayor of a place with 41,000 people, which is probably not enough to make the mayor notable. This is even more the case because Bonita Springs has a council-manager form of government, where the mayor is just a figure head, and the city is run by a city manager. I live in a city with that type of government, and we have 132,000 people (my city is Sterling Heights, Michigan), and I would support deleting an article on my city's mayor as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A population of 41K is not large enough for a city to hand its mayors an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing, John Pack Lambert is entirely correct that we do draw a distinction between real executive mayors and ceremonial council-manager mayors for the purposes of NPOL #3, and the volume of sourcing here (which is half primary sources and half purely WP:ROUTINE local coverage) does not demonstrate that he passes WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 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. KaisaL (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shamim Azad (actor)[edit]

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

The subject doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:ENT. A Hindi stage actor based in Shahjahanpur. The Hindu source within the article is a review of a play that said his performance was good (among four others, not top billing within that list). The other sources (in Hindi) are about a local award at given at this high school (inter college = high school). Nothing in Hindi or English to show that the subject passes our notability guidelines. —SpacemanSpiff 17:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 17:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 17:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Not helping matters is the fact that the article's creator is a sock operator who apparently is here to promote himself and his small-time colleagues. This AfD notice removal is indicative of a pattern of disruptive behavior from this guy and his cronies. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The references is not show this...who that you saying...👆 you r going to near only imagine.....thats wrong.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.219.24.65 (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If even the Hindu News has only a mention, there's no possible notability. DGG ( talk ) 15:29, 30 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 04:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funktasy[edit]

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

This was speedy deleted once so I am sending it to AfD. The article is about a non-notable record label. I couldn't find any coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. At the moment, it easily fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. I'm struggling to find any independent sources about any of the label's artists either, and the sources in the article are all from the label or the founder's own websites. Richard3120 (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The three weblinks currently used as sources for the article are self-published. I had a look for coverage in reliable sources but didn't find anything. Notability has not been established. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches are simply finding nothing else better, it's only about 6 years old and there's nothing at all to suggest the needed levels of solid independent notability. Sufficient consensus here. SwisterTwister talk 01:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick James Westlake[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP on a footballer who has never played in a fully-professional league, and thus fails WP:NFOOTY. Prod removed by article creator, who judging by his username, may also be the subject (he has also made his user page and talk page into the same article). Number 5 7 16:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have U5'd the user and talk pages as WP:NOTWEBHOST, we're not here for people to use user space to create articles on their non-notable selves, especially talk pages. Fenix down (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFOOTBALL. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:34, 28 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Bishop[edit]

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

I do not see any third party coverage except listings, or is anything of what he did presumed to be notable. (not myfield, so I may be mistaken) DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sign of any notability, not even notoriety . Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable wrestler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing that even shows anything on the article is even true. References listed no longer exist, other references listed look fake. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG, non notable wrestler. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:35, 28 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. Hut 8.5 21:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality Education in British Columbia[edit]

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

Propaganda piece using a WP:COATRACK article. (That the propaganda is coming from the "good" side does not change that there are guidelines: WP:OR, WP:ESSAY, WP:POV).

Now the topic might be acceptable, but it would probably better be in a parent article Sex education in Canada - and even then, that is a redlink and the section at Sex_education#North_America is almost empty. So I doubt there would be value in keeping. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is very much an essay, which isn't really about British Columbia's sex education curriculum as a thing in its own right, so much as it is about general concepts in sex education that are the same in British Columbia as they are anywhere else — BC most certainly does not have its own special BC-exclusive definitions of "homophobia" or "bullying" or "queer theory", for starters. Literally the only thing here that's uniquely BC-specific is the brief section which simply bulletpoints which particular concepts get taught at what grade level. It might theoretically be possible to write standalone articles about Canadian provinces' or US states' differing sex education curricula — but the key to making that approach viable would require an article that addressed what was distinctive about sex education in that state or province, not on just being a glossary of concepts that mean the same thing everywhere, which means that this article as written isn't even worth keeping as a foundation. Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an essay, and there is nothing to build an article with. Fieari (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It could have been worse, Bearcat; it was going to be called Draft:Sexuality Education in BC's School District 23, apparently where the WP:SPA who typed this essay is employed (and who belongs to the BC Teacher's Federation that they cited and mentioned). British Columbia is scarcely mentioned and has nothing to do with this article. And prose such as "For those who consider themselves LGBTQ+, changes must occur" casts no doubt as to the motivation of the POV-pushing author. This isn't just an essay, it's an activist's blog post. The sole section about BC is an information handout sheet or activist's pamphlet. I'm torn because the article is well-cited with reliable, even scholarly sources and is not in copy violation (I checked). However, for the reasons we have all stated, this article cannot possibly be in the encyclopedia. Maybe the author can put it on their school's website. —Prhart com♥ 13:24, 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 to Kaoru Hasuike. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dakkan (manga)[edit]

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

Very short manga series, only two volumes. I can find nothing about it beyond the concept. No ja.wiki article. It should be noted that the title and kanji are identical to the Japanese title for Half Past Dead which is unrelated. No author page for a redirect. SephyTheThird (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kaoru Hasuike. This is a case where the subject and the story received a manga adaptation but the manga itself is not notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted A5 by DGG. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 17:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wildflower Cafe[edit]

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

No evidence of notability; PROD was removed by creating editor with assertion that " very notable in the local music scene". No coverage in Google books, or in Google news (several references to "Site of the former..."). PamD 16:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination: article has disappeared - was blanked by creator, CSD'd as G7, but now appears to have been "transwikied to another project". PamD 16:25, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Spence[edit]

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

I am honestly on the fence about this one. The relevant guideline is WP:NPOL and I do not think being Deputy Lord Mayor of Belfast qualifies as "major politician" (see here), though the mayor probably would.

This is corroborated by the very small amount of press coverage I found, most of it linked to the death threats affair. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON as this is probably only the beginning of his political career. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Belfast is not the level of city that makes city council members notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Belfast is certainly a significant enough city that it might be possible to source a local councillor over WP:GNG, but it's not in the rarefied class of cities that can actually give their city councillors an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing — and the sourcing here, which consists of two news articles and a set of the city council's own primary source meeting minutes, does not get him past GNG. And "Deputy Lord Mayor", in this context, is a ceremonial title which rotates so that everybody on city council gets to hold it for a year, so it doesn't constitute a strong claim of greater notability than the norm for a city councillor. And being the youngest person to hold the office doesn't help, either — if a person isn't satisfying NPOL or GNG, then they don't get a special notability exemption for being younger or older than their colleagues. Also possible/probable WP:COI, as the article was created by a user named "Belfastcc" (i.e. Belfast city council). Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject does have source coverage but it's almost entirely in local media - things like [2] [3] [4]. Coverage in wider media is more limited (see e.g. [5]). Belfast is a major city and I wouldn't be surprised if a city councillor could satisfy our notability criteria, but they don't qualify automatically per WP:POLITICIAN and I don't think that coverage in British local press is enough. Hut 8.5 21:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete with sufficient consensus here, as there's still nothing confidently better for solid independent notability, there's some sources but I'm still not seeing anything solidly better. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 29 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 The Washington, Belsize Park. Seems like a plausible redirect, no need to delete it. Jenks24 (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington, Hampstead‎[edit]

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

Duplicates existing page The Washington, Belsize Park Headhitter (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm the editor who started the article , and agree that it is a duplicate. Edwardx (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why not just do a redirect or a CSD if you created the page? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:54, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London City F.C.[edit]

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

A minor startup club without evidence of notability. The references are the club's own site and a page which doesn't even mention the club. I actually think the article might be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7, but I decided to give a chance for evidence of notability to be provided. (A PROD was removed by the creator of teh article without any reason being given.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What stands out to me is this: "The club has expressed interest in obtaining a licence to play in the FA Women's Super League". So this to me meets WP:CRYSTAL, as yes they exist, but not currently at a level that would meet WP:NFOOT. If the team does become part of the Women's Super League, of course at that time they would be notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation from The FA regarding 2016/2017 participation has been provided Jaydbutler 15:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tagged it as lacking notability in the hope that something notable might surface, but nothing has. The comment above from Jaydbutler suggests that the reasoning behind this deletion discussion is unclear to the author. Please read WP:GNG for more detailed guidance, and/or WP:NFOOT as suggested above. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails the accepted notability guideline for clubs of having played in a national league or cup. Article can be restored if/when the club ever achieves its stated aims. Number 5 7 22:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable club. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:37, 28 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. KaisaL (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Thinking[edit]

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

Extended Thinking appears to be one philosopher's fringe theory to replace evolution with a form of intelligent design that posits that individual organisms modify themselves in order to meet the needs of their environment. An interesting argument, but not one that has received any coverage outside of this single author's book and lectures. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTESSAY, with bonus points for the title "The esoteric bases of microbiology". I do not really know if the nominator is correct in suggesting that the theory is associated to Lamarckism, but I do not really care. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable theory, already entioned in the article on its author, who is notable -- for other things than this. DGG ( talk ) 15:05, 30 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. Agree with the G4 proposal, nothing has been added to the article since the last AfD to indicate notability through GNG or any subject specific guideline. Fenix down (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odsonne Edouard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has not played in a Proffessional league. Not notable. Kante4 (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per WP:G4. This article is not substantially different than the one deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odsonne Édouard. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:20, 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 speedy delete. Agree with G4 proposal, nothing added to the article to indicate notability through any subject specific guideline or GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

José Gomes (footballer, born 1999)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested prod. He has not played in a Professional league, so he is not notable. Kante4 (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per WP:G4. This article is not substantially different than the one deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José Gomes (footballer born 1999). Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:09, 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 speedy delete. G5, also salting this title now. —SpacemanSpiff 14:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cinfoways pvt ltd[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP - no real assertion of notability. No coverage aside from sources that are simply rehashing the PR copy. KH-1 (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:41, 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) 10:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orlacher Bach[edit]

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

Do we have WP:GEOLAND1E? This appears to be it. This is just a random NN stream, written about because of a local news event, and WP:NOTNEWS. MSJapan (talk) 09:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very well-developed article in German at de:Orlacher Bach. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Shawn in Montreal notes there is sufficient material to support an article about this named natural feature as part of our gazeteer function as described in WP:GEOLAND. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I do want to make it clear I was commenting, not casting a !vote. As the nominator has pointed out in the past, the guideline does "specifically exclude maps," which I see does comprise a lot of the sourcing on the German wiki article. Perhaps I should have simply said "detailed" rather than "well-developed." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the flood probably makes it notable, or alternatively Redirect to a tribs section of the Kocher...Jokulhlaup (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NAHBGreen[edit]

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

WP:NOTPROMO. This is a lesser-known competitor to LEED. No independent sources, which is going to be a problem for these types of certifications. MSJapan (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The program meets WP:GNG. The article would benefit from copy editing to tighten it up and address some matters with tone, but it is notable. I have performed a few edits to reduce the promotional tone. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Understanding Green Building Guidelines. W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 89–91.
The Complete Idiot's Guide to Green Building and Remodeling. Penguin. pp. 281– . (subscription required)
Prefabulous + Sustainable. Abrams.
Estimating for Residential Construction. Cengage Learning. p. 14.
The Complete Guide to Contracting Your Home. F+W Media. pp. 197–198. (subscription required)
NBC News
The Tuscaloosa News
Building Design+Construction.
Wood & Wood Products. (subscription required)

Keep per sources found by Northamerica1000. ~Kvng (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 15:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Wasser[edit]

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

Classic WP:BLP1E. Model who had toxic shock syndrome from a tampon, debuted at Fashion Week with a prosthetic leg, and promptly dropped off the face of the earth coverage-wise. Every single hit on her name is the same story. MSJapan (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a lawsuit against Kotex - the company that made the tampon - which I am planning to develop into the article. I am not sure if the inclusion of the lawsuit event is better placed within the Kotex article or within this article. I feel...mention of the lawsuit along with TSS makes this article worthy of being put up on Wikipedia. Thus, not every hit is same story. Kapil.xerox (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Fails BLP1E as well as GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Does not satisfy all three conditions of WP:BLP1E as required as coverage is continuing, the event was significant and the subject's role was substantial and well documented. ~Kvng (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is as there's still nothing else from the events and thus there's no inherited article simply because of those events, there's also imaginably simply nothing else for any future improvements thus delete overall. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly one of those WP:BLP1E situations. I would disagree that this is a major event, four news sources doesn't mean that the event was necessarily very notable, and the subject definitely fails the other two points of BLP1E. She also hasn't received nearly enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, there is really not that many reliable sources out there at all in relation to this event. Omni Flames (talk) 10:40, 29 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) –Davey2010^Talk 23:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fukah[edit]

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

NN per WP:GEOLAND. This is apparently unpopulated despite the claim in the article and the map - this source seems to indicate there isn't anything within 3 km of the location. MSJapan (talk) 09:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That source, when you zoom in, indicates a town exactly where it says there is one.--Oakshade (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but GEOLAND has exceptions for census tracts and suchlike wrt legal recognition, where if it's not recognized, it's not presumed keepable. As I am unsure of that, I've asked for some assistance to try to figure it out. Just FYI, at the point we're at now, it's going to be a no consensus keep. MSJapan (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per GEOLAND, probably as just "Keep." --Oakshade (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like a real population center to me. Even has its own train station. A g-map search in just the Latin characters, which was all that was needed in this case, is quicker than starting an AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I did in the first place, but I only used the map mode - I figured it would show something more than what it did. [6] may not be RS, but it says it has only 154 people, and I can't find anything on its legal recognition as required by WP:GEOLAND (which excludes maps for purposes of notability, by the way). I also got more hits for "Fouka" vs. "Fukah", so I think it's a transliteration problem. I'll keep looking, but I'm not at the point where I see this as withdrawable yet. MSJapan (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It's a populated legally recognizable place. Your full rationale was that it's "apparently unpopulated[sic]" and that a map source "seems to indicate there isn't anything within 3 km of the location." Both have been proven to be wrong. Why is this AfD still going? --Oakshade (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:GEOLAND excludes maps aside from WP:V, so I need a bit of time to go through this new stuff and see what I get. I'm not sure of the RS on what I did find yet. MSJapan (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So despite your entire deletion rationale being wrong, you're keeping this AfD going because you refuse to believe the satellite imagery (which is not a map, by the way) showing this is a distinct population center is real? --Oakshade (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a distinction between WP:V and WP:N. MSJapan (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So which is the rationale for keeping this AfD going now? Do you feel the existence of this town is not verified (WP:V) or do you feel it's not notable (WP:N)? --Oakshade (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, thought it was clear that it is V and is not N. I thought I was going to find something when I saw an article on a Fouka Bridge in Mersa Matrouh, but the village isn't mentioned, and apparently there's Fouka Bay, as well. I've got to dig more, but since I can't figure out if it's a census tract or not, I'm still on the fence on this. At the very least, it's not at the right title. MSJapan (talk) 06:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems sufficient that the Egyptian government put a post office there. Google gives the phone number as +20 46 4350026; perhaps someone should call them to see if it's really there </sarcasm> Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can check, but you're going to have to wait until I get the requisite international phone card, oh, and learn Arabic. Can you wait that long, or should I trust your judgment? :) MSJapan (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're keeping this AfD going because you think there's a conspiracy of all satellite operators, Egypt Post [7] and all map makers to make this population center up? --Oakshade (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep real place, now apparently verified is notable per WP:GEOLAND; I suggest the nom withdraw it since the nomination statement is obviously false. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - meets the guidelines, but it will need a rename to Fouka. MSJapan (talk) 03:35, 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. Article's been sourced and improved since nomination - Consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Social polling[edit]

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

Despite the link to the article, "social polling" pulls up apps that allow users to make polls. Nothing appears to come up that's RS. Created by SPA User:Socialpollster. MSJapan (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Using a simple WP:BEFORE style search, I have added 6 sources since the initial prod. There is a Time piece, 2 academic papers, and a piece by the pollster Pew Research that look secondary and reliable. The entrepreneur.com piece is secondary and in depth, but is a lightweight source. The Variety piece may or may not be reliable, but is secondary. Overall, there are multiple in-depth reliable sources needed for notability per WP:GNG and upon which to build a modest article. --Mark viking (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd've taken a wide berth on some of those (especially entrepreneur as failing WP:NONCOM), and I think the academic papers are WP:PRIMARY, but I'd have to read them to see how they're being cited. I think I'd rather see this as part of open access poll if we're at a point where there's good enough sourcing. I'm still seeing a bit of a conceptual disconnect between the confluence of big data, social media as polling location, and social media for poll creation. It might be the state of the article itself, but I don't think the sources are in sync with the article, and at least open access poll will give it some context. Also, as a nitpick, should the title be "social poll" the noun vs. "social polling" the active gerund? MSJapan (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There are enough sources provided to support the topic's notability. However this is a stub and could use more text deriving from the sources. Also the source declaring social polling to be "unscientific" may itself be unreliable. Author Brian Lowry is a television critic who bases the assertion on an uncited statement by the Public Agenda organization. Actual input by qualified experts may be needed to declare anything to be unscientific. Dimadick (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the stub. I agree and will remove the Lowry source and claim. --Mark viking (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes GNG per recent edits. p b p 15:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG. --Dcirovic (talk) 16:42, 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. Despite WP:BCASTOUTCOMES, decision is tempered by the lack of information and referencing on this at all and suspicions of a WP:HOAX. KaisaL (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYIC-TV[edit]

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

Local TV station, notability not asserted. MSJapan (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Licensed stations are generally notable per WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. ~Kvng (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as possible hoax. The subject does not exist in the said area. The network only broadcasts on radio and pay TV. Sixth o f March 22:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:V. Not a single third party source (or event primary source) exists which can help verify the assertion in the article. This may well be a hoax. The website of the network seems to have nothing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:05, 27 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. Not much discussion, but the outcome still seems clear. I'll call this a WP:SOFTDELETE. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bushnell Airport[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Notability#Private airports tend not to be notable on their own, that seems to be the case here. MSJapan (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the airport is now known as:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles. Essentially, both these articles are about the same private airport. The sources available only show that the airport exists, not why it is notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of private airports. In addition, as these are private airports, I agree with nom that Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Notability#Private airports tend not to be notable on their own applies here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:02, 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) 06:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grand opening[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic. There's no set way to run a grand opening, so most of the hits are to companies that will run them for a client. The talk page indicates that there may also be a problem where the definition in the first paragraph is actually a better definition for the second. Unsourced for nine years. WP:TNT may be necessary in order to have a starting point for a new article. MSJapan (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I prodded it for deletion but it was removed. I think expansion of the phrase at Wiktionary would make sense, but not on Wikipedia.--TM 10:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Streetwise Meeting and Event Planning. Adams Media. Chapter 8. pp. 89–103. – An entire book chapter devoted to the topic.
Three Years in Wonderland. University Press of Mississippi. Chapter 7. pp. pt151–?. (subscription required) – An entire book chapter devoted to the topic.
Guerrilla Marketing Online Weapons. pp. 140–144. (subscription required)
Broadcast News Writing, Reporting, and Producing. pp. 188– . (subscription required)
How to Open a Restaurant. pp. pt109–110.
Fans Not Customers: How to create growth companies in a no growth world. pp. pt40–41.
Ready-Made Book Displays. pp. 64–65.
90 Days to Success in Fundraising. pp. 81–82.
Making Dough: The 12 Secret Ingredients of Krispy Kreme's Sweet Success. p. 81.

Keep. There are plenty of sources to substantiate the notability of this topic. The article definitely needs improvement, but I think it is an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article. Plenty can be said about grand openings, how they work, their history, etc. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I agree. The article can easily be expanded and improved per available sources that cover the topic and term. Thing is, it takes a bunch of time to refute deletion nominations, which takes away from time that could be spent improving articles. Then, there's the catch-22 and potential vicious circle of working on an article that is nominated for deletion; why waste time on an article that could potentially still be deleted? See also: chicken or the egg. If the article is retained, then I may work to improve it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are excellent points. For editors who have no personal stake in a subject, PROD and AfD tags definitely serve as a disincentive with respect to article improvement. I certainly appreciate your efforts at AfD to demonstrate the notability of articles that have been nominated for deletion, and I am sure other editors feel the same way. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you and would also like to spend more of my time improving articles. A deprodded article like this normally enjoys some measure of immunity as it cannot be prodded again. However, my deprods lately seem to be subject to a spat of overzealous deletion by a certain editor. ~Kvng (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Northamerica1000. This is a good example of an article that should be improved instead of deleted. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found in WP:BEFORE-style search by Northamerica1000. ~Kvng (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the multiple in depth RS found by Northamerica1000, nice work. An important topic in small-business marketing. --Mark viking (talk) 01:04, 28 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 University of Santo Tomas, if sources can be found to verify the information. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USTExchange[edit]

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

NN online alumni network for a college in the Phillippines. MSJapan (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not have coverage from reliable secondary sources. Sixth o f March 22:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Santo Tomas as an WP:ATD suggested in my deprod. ~Kvng (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but a sentence ortwo would be enough. It's appropriate contents in the main article, but not as a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 15:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since the article has no references, I don't think merging is appropriate. Sixth o f March 22:36, 30 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 objections against recreation of the article demonstrating notability of the individual--Ymblanter (talk) 07:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Mukerjee[edit]

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

As the earlier notice says, this article reads like an advertisement and there is only one reference link to an article, which even if valid, does not substantiate all the unreferenced claims in the page. The personal advertisement page fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:PSTS and WP:CORPDEPTH. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tushti (talk • contribs) 22:51, June 19, 2016‎ (UTC)

Fixed the above nomination and transcluding now. —SpacemanSpiff 06:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 06:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 06:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 06:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete oy. TNT at minimum. Jytdog (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Better off blown up and rewritten. –Davey2010^Talk 17:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although she is a very well known person in India, this article is written totally like an advertisement with possible COI. AfD is not a clean-up act and hence voting as delete. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:07, 28 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. Rlendog (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gergen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NHOCKEY has changed since the last nomination, and this player no longer meets the stronger criteria. -DJSasso (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Denny[edit]

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

fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 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. KaisaL (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Siri Rama[edit]

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

dubious notability, promotional tone Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat promotional tone certainly, and created by an editor with a history of creating really blatantly promotional articles. I'm not sure about the notability. One of the references is her own web site, and therefore of no value at all in establishing notability. The other is an article in The Hindu, which does indicate that she has received some degree of notice. However, it is one of those fawningly promotional puff pieces which even major Indian newspapers go in for when writing about entertainers, which makes it difficult to asses how much is hype and how much is genuine notability. The first few hits from a Google search were her own web site, blogspot, Facebook, YouTube, a page on a web site of which the "about us" page states that its purpose is promotion, this Wikipedia article, and so on. My conclusion is that so far the best evidence for satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines is the article in The Hindu, but, even if we set aside the reservations about its value that I have mentioned, just one newspaper article does a limited amount towards establishing notability. However, that article does give the impression that she has been significantly noticed, so rather than saying "delete" I will for the moment sit on the fence, and wait to see if anyone can be more successful than I have been at finding suitable sources. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable dancer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not accept the Hindu for notability of performers--their coverage in such fields is indistinguishable from press releases. DGG ( talk ) 15:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was only able to find two Hindu articles (see DGG's comment). — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:18, 30 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. KaisaL (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Fritsche[edit]

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

fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep earned all rookie honours, and all tournament team selection at college level. Triggerbit (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those passes NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. we have well established minimum standard for sports, and he does not meet them. DGG ( talk ) 15:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pasquale Cozzolino[edit]

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

Pure promotionalism -- and a very unlikely claim -- he came to the US in 20111. Neapolitan stye pizza was in the US long before that -- at least in NYC, so its the sort of extraordinary claim that need extraordinary evidence. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable chef.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of any notability - references all seem to be self publicity about a so called pizza diet. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 09:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing to meet WP:CORPDEPTH in that the news coverage consists of (a) reviews of the restaurant (generally local to New York) and (b) the "pizza diet" the article subject reportedly engaged in is reported in multiple sources worldwide, but consists of republications of essentially the same information contained in all the initial sources: he lost weight by reducing his caloric intake to 2,700 calories and ate a pizza for lunch. Meh. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:27, 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. Two relists without additional comment mean this can't be closed on the basis of an actionable consensus. KaisaL (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MotoParking[edit]

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

Utterly trivial, with primarily local notices DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur, there's nothing here at all to suggest massive notability apart from its apparent use at a few cities. Nothing convincing here, SwisterTwister talk 00:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While not very widely used, certainly seems to be a system used in a number of cities, and different countries, with a few references. Seems notable 04:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Weak keep - I found some more references in the news I'll add momentarily, all RS. I used them all the time riding through the UK. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 15:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've said delete to quite a few business and organizations I know of, or even use. That's not the standard for notability DGG ( talk ) 08:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The parking system is quite new and doesn't seem to be used widely enough. Notability is not simply existence. The sources I see in the article are questionable/self published/non-independent/local/primary. Some of them are reviews in non-notable online magazines (the kind a company can just pay and get). Others are routine local news of installation of a parking system. This fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:AUD. In addition, one of the references used [8] does not backup the claim "MotoParking is a title sponsor of the European Formula 3 Championship". To top it all, the tone of the article is hopelessly promotional. This seems to me an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion and should be deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 04:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:01, 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ek Prayas[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Nothing at Google News, nothing of note at the custom Indian newspaper search engine. None of the hits pertain to this play.

It also bears mention that the article's creator has been engaging in some questionable editing very indicative of promotional goals. He has created articles on non-notable people and events and has recreated them against community consensus on several occasions. Further, I'm certain he's been engaging in sock/meatpuppetry. On the GNG merits alone, however, this article should be deleted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It also bears mention that IP 106.219.25.174 attempted to remove the AfD template, something similar to Shamimanm's disruption of an AFD, which demonstrates bad faith editing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with all the reference padding going on with the walled garden, it's difficult to figure out what's right and what's not. That said, a search in Hindi or English for this doesn't turn up anything to show notability. —SpacemanSpiff 17:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danada, Illinois[edit]

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

Attempts to find reliable sources to support this article have been fruitless. The one reference describes a section of forest preserve that is described (appropriately) at Forest Preserve District of DuPage County. If this is a single subdivision in suburban Chicago, it doesn't meet notability. Fitnr 02:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It meets notability if there is enough to say about it. --do ncr am 06:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, probably, unless it can be established the historic racetrack was historically within the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County (but is the Danada Forest Preserve properly a part of that or not?), and develop. It seems to be a historical racetrack, i.e. I think there may have been a racetrack named Danada Racetrack, or at least there was a racetrack there. Perhaps the article needs to be refocused on the Danada Racetrack? And once notable, always notable. Consistent with what's covered in article. Searching the NYT on just "Danada" brings up multiple horses named "Danada Flash", "Danada Gift", etc. which raced all over in 1947, 1948, 1949: e.g. "Danada Captain wins at Garden State". There remains a Danada Equestrian Center, which the the current Forest Preserve District of DuPage County says was created in 1984. The Forest Preserve District was founded in 1915 and got its first 79 acres in 1917 (which is not a huge area). If it contained the historic racetrack area--which is doubtful because a racetrack is not forest to be preserved--I agree the racetrack could be covered in that. --do ncr am 06:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is complementary article Dan and Ada Rice whose "Thoroughbred racing" section mentions a half-mile training track that still exists today, on the 1,350-acre Danada Farm. The Danada House is an "estate" house and the Danada Farm both seem notable places which the Danada, Illinois article can cover as places, differently than they can be mentioned within in an article about the people. A 1/2 mile historical racetrack that still exists is a place that needs to be described and explained, linking to the Dan and Ada Rice article of course. --do ncr am 06:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well the "Danada map" which can be downloaded from here shows that the Danada Forest Preserve includes a racetrack (presumably "the" racetrack) and the Dana House. The Danada Forest Preserve could be a separate article, or part of a combo article with the Danada, Illinois area as a census district (consistent with "Keep" decision). Or at least it needs to be a proper section of the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County article which currently lists the Dana House within educational stuff. It is not covered adequately there currently. --do ncr am 06:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the 1 Keep Cote is based with if this actually exists and yet my searches have found next to nothing at all, the one listed link would still not be enough to confidently confirm its existence thus Delete is best here or else we are going to have a still questionable article. SwisterTwister talk 18:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. The user has made a series of questionable edits creating pages for non-existent places in Illinois. I'm surprised they lasted this long. Smartyllama (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Edison (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable locale. Calling it a populated place is a hoax. It's there as a former homestead and that's about it. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 29 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. Article needs improvement and depthening or it may be back here eventually. KaisaL (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Growthworks[edit]

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

Single line page on a Canadian Venture Capital company which hasn't been substantively improved or referenced since it was de-prod'd in 2009. No claim of notability. The company does turn up on google, most of the returns are its own reporting. There are a couple of articles about the decline of the company and its struggles to provide value for shareholders but nothing suggesting this is a notable company. MLA (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep –WP:CORPDEPTH pass. Source examples are listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Financial Post
Vancouver Sun
Winnipeg Free Press
Financial Post
Financial Post
Financial Post
Financial Post
Financial Post

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notablefailure. The sources cover its problems in considerable detail and explain its importance. The refs--and the article--need expansion. DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 30 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 04:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha sigma delta[edit]

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

Apparent WP:COI (see this revision of the article's talkpage), fails WP:NOTABILITY altogether and (seems to me) worded as a promotional article (See WP:PROMOTION #4). Davidbuddy9Talk 00:48, 6 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 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no credible claim of significance.TheLongTone (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (not speedy delete, just delete) as a non-notable organization. No reliable sources or bylined newspapers have made mention of it. I agree that the current text also reads as promotional, although this is not, in and of itself, a deletion criteria. But the lack of notability is. Fieari (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Only passing mentions on unreliable sources, fails WP:ORG. Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:33, 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. Brought to you by deleting as a service. Sandstein 11:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giving as a service[edit]

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

Not even evidence of existence except for 2 press releases or PR newswire. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software neologism article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this term. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As there was little community discussion consider this a soft delete. J04n(talk page) 13:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anshuman Malhotra[edit]

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

No indication that this person is notable. There are no links that can confirm his notability in one way or another. The link included in the article doesn't verify anything and is just some kind of gossip-related article. Sabbatino (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still nothing at all suggesting any solid independent notability, nothing at all convincing given he's only had a few works so far. SwisterTwister talk 03:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 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 01:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 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 keep. Consensus appears to have been demonstrated through reliable references after two relists, although will acknowledge as a closing comment that it is slim and arguments have been made in both directions. KaisaL (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Barker (hypnotist)[edit]

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

This article screams of paid advocacy work, (just look at the infobox picture), and there doesn't seem to be actual notability established. All of the sources, with one exception (Las Vegas Sun), are from local news outlets... and the bizjournal source is only an interview (which appears to be PR). Suggest deleting this article, as I doubt further notability will actually be established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks coverage in independent reliable sources and page reads like an advertisement. Meatsgains (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can help to make this article more resourceful since Richard barker is actively involved in many activities and this way he is famous in his work. Many users are not very experienced in Wikipedia so users on wikipedia can support others to make articles resourceful. Also, it would be encouraging new users to contribute to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.125.253.228 (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject actually meets WP:BASIC, having received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. Also, the article does not have a promotional tone at this time; it simply provides an overview about the subject, based upon what reliable sources have reported. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Las Vegas Sun
Orlando Sentinel
Orlando Business Journal
Coeur d'Alene Press
WKMG
KPRC-TV
Today (short article and 20:11 length news broadcast)
WJBK (8:02 length news broadcast)
WOFL (2:51 length news broadcast)
Digital Spy (short article and video news report)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of sources provided by NA1000. SST flyer 02:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 02:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references specified above are either press releases or notices of appearance, or both., All partof a promotional campaign. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an good reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Reviewing the provided sources above...
- Las Vegas Sun - This is a notable, reliable newspaper. The article is about the subject, not merely a mention. Not a press release or notice of appearance, this is a full article.

it certainly isa PR. He describes his own technique. `` — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

He didn't publish this, and he didn't write these words. A writer for the paper wrote the article, an editor reviewed it, it passed a selective criteria for the paper. This is not self publishing, thus, it is not PR. Fieari (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Orlando Sentinel - This is a notable, reliable newspaper. The article is about the subject, not merely a mention. Not a press release or notice of appearance, this is a full article.
- Orlando Business Journal - Small circulation newspaper, would not, in and of itself, grant notability, but is a reliable source to provide facts for the article, and lends weight to notability claims. The fact that this article is purely an interview might suggest promotionalism, except that it's not a self-published interview.

Orlando Business Journal and all similar local business journals, are entirely and totally vehicles for PR. We've never accepted them as RS for notability and rarely as a RS for anything else either . DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that this would not, by itself, be enough to establish notability. I only suggest that it adds weight, and that it can be used when notability has been independently established. Fieari (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Coeur d'Alene Press - Another small circulation newspaper that would not, in and of itself, grant notability. In this case, however, it is a full article, and the article is about the subject, not merely a mention. Also not a press release or notice of appearance.

I think that's enough of a source review, anyway. This article meets or exceeds our notability criteria, and the article itself is purely factual, without any promotional spin. I must !vote Keep, and question the !votes above, particularly that of @DGG:. I simply don't see any press releases, appearance notices, or self-published puff pieces. I do see legitimate news coverage. Fieari (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The news articles I posted above are bylined news articles written by staff writers for independent, reliable sources. No evidence of the sources supposedly being "press releases" has been provided, and such evidence is unlikely to be found, because they are not. Repeatedly insisting that bylined news articles are press releases without any proof of such claim is essentially an unfounded proof by assertion, rather than proof by facts. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia does not tolerate advertising of any kind, and this is clearly advertising, presumably undeclared paid advocacy as Coffee says; I note that two SPAs have worked on it, in the classic Orangemoody pattern. Regardless of notability, this should be deleted, without prejudice to subsequent re-creation by a non-involved editor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are we even reading the same article, Justlettersandnumbers? There is nothing here that is written as an advertisement. Assume notability for a moment... other than having a page that states that a thing exists, what about this is advertising, as opposed to be a dry encyclopedic listing of reliable facts? Having a single purpose editor does not, independently of an article's content, render an article void. Heck, I even support PAID content in Wikipedia as long as it is encyclopedic and follows all our policies. And I assert that this article is encyclopedic, devoid of advertising language, and furthermore, has been established to be notable by at least two independent reliable sources. Fieari (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the article presently does not have a promotional tone, peacock phrasings or promotional praise for the subject. It's a neutrally-worded, expandable stub-class article that provides a general overview about the subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It may have been a paid article, but I'm not seeing anything WP:TNT-worthy now, and the sources above, which are obviously not all press releases, demonstrate WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Are there any more sources that can be added to make this more viable toward the policy?. Simplespeed4ce (talk) 03:32, 30 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 if reliable sources have been found--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Luc Rioux[edit]

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

PROD was removed by page's creator. Subject lacks notability and independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find much out there to verify the page's content. Meatsgains (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be at a session player sort of level which in itself isn't enough to justify inclusion. If he were credited in a headline as a feature with some of the artists, I would lean to keeping it, but it's all composer credits with aren't so important in pop. KaisaL (talk) 23:32, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ship's Cat[edit]

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

I don't see any reviews of this book. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The book does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently self- or vanity- published, non-notable novel. Fieari (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find nothing to suggest that this book is notable - the only mention I found of it is a brief mention here, which isn't even remotely enough to give or suggest notability. Offhand the author's notability also seems to be in question, which is part of the reason why I'm not immediately suggesting a redirect to the author's article. The other reason is that if this article is deleted then The Adventures & Brave Deeds of the Ship's Cat on the Spanish Maine should be moved there, since the book's cover marks it as "The Ship's Cat" - making this article the more reasonable location. That article also has some issues with notability and sourcing, so if I can't find notability for the book I'd recommend turning it into a redirect to Ship's cat, possibly to the section that specifically deals with ship cats in fiction. I'll update this later if anything changes after I do some searching for the other book and for Brandis. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus � DGG ( talk ) 15:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Treponema spirochetes[edit]

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

Previous edit summaries show significant belief that this is not an actual species. Taking to AfD to resolve the matter. I gather from the source that this is not a real species, thus delete. Safiel (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete - no GHits on this term except for here. MSJapan (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)*[reply]
Comment - so why did you decline the CSD? If you search for the name, it only appears here. A spirochete is a type of bacteria, and Treponema is a genus, and in the listing on that article, this "species" doesn't appear. MSJapan (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I declined speedy deletion because CSD G3 applies only to obvious and DELIBERATE hoaxes. Your speedy deletion message, however, indicated that you didn't believe it to be a purposeful hoax, thus speedy deletion is inapplicable. Safiel (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe this article to be a deliberate hoax, but more likely a good faith error. Safiel (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I obviously don't disagree with the assessment, but I guess I don't get why, if it so obviously incorrect, and can't be fixed under any circumstances, that there's no mechanism to CSD unless it's done with intent. MSJapan (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like someone misread the source and so mistakenly made this article. Fieari (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article [9] describes the above term as the medical or scientific term for syphilis. Use a browser search tool to find the word in this article. In this article, Columbus's crew spread it into parts of Europe in the 1490's. I wonder if it is mentioned our Christopher Columbus article? I wonder if WikiProject Medicine covers this topic? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It also covered (or mentioned) in medical books on Google Books [10], [11]. Here are ten (or more) listings for it on Google Scholar: [12]. Here are two related articles listed on High Beam [13]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search seems to be successful [14] However, except for the books, how reliable are these sources? Well here is a peer reviewed paper from that search [15] - other than that I can't say. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The genus isn't the problem - we have an article on Treponema. Treponema pallidum causes syphilis per that Columbus article. The problem is that T. spirochetes as a species name doesn't exist. Treponema are spirochetes, so the terms are often used together, but they don't refer to a species. Where you're getting the exact hits are wiki mirrors of this article, and the Highbeam stuff has commas, so you're not getting hits on a species name there, either. Put another way so that the name unfamiliarity isn't obfuscating, it's like saying "Homo erectus walked upright on two legs", and writing an article called Homo bifemorii as a result. That's what we have here. MSJapan (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:MSJapan - OK - thanks. Obviously, I don't have enough knowledge about this subject or this discipline. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is obviously a misunderstanding, not the name of an actual species. You can find occurrences of the string "Treponema spirochetes", but more properly it should be "Treponema spirochetes", as in "we found a bunch of spirochetes, and some of them were from the genus Treponema". Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear: delete and do not redirect. This is not a common term like "tuna fish", or a plausible search term; it's just a mistake. Keeping it as a redirect would just be an artifact of a weird wiki-allergy against deleting things done in good faith, even when it's clearly needed. No one has seen fit to create Borrelia spirochetes, or Homo animalia, or any number of the other totally nonsensical combinations this would imply by precedent. Please don't spread mistakes all over the internet. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not by speedy. Per MSJapan, Safiel and O. regalis. IMO this is correctly brought here as the author appears to have been a steady editor who has misread something. Even if it was a hoax, the reasons for deletion are best put forward where people can see them. In this case, the only given reference does not mention this 'species' so far as I can see. At https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10720821_Characterization_of_Treponema_phagedenis-Like_Spirochetes_Isolated_from_Papillomatous_Digital_Dermatitis_Lesions_in_Dairy_Cattle can be seen a candidate for the actual culprit in the lameness, and a good example of why a species in Treponema would NOT be given the specific name 'spirochetes' as it would lead to confusion. Peridon (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Treponema are spirochetes, so, even if the article is a mistake, why not redirect to Treponema? Largoplazo (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Because that perpetuates the confusion. Consider the history of the Neelix redirects: redirects from made-up words end up contaminating the rest of the internet through mirrors. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know the history of Neelix redirects, but my point is that even though the article was created by mistake, the title actually happens to be correct in a different way, in the same way that Mynah bird → Mynah and Tuna fish → Tuna are, and shouldn't be any more a source of trouble than those are. Largoplazo (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This was clearly a mistake by a good-faith editor who interpreted a source as describing a particular species when it did not. We have articles on treponema, spiral bacteria and spirochaetes. This has no more value than adding a redundant article on HIV retroviruses or human apes. A redirect is not necessary, because this confusion is not something we would reasonably expect to occur often. Any argument to preserve this as a redirect would imply that we should have a complete set of redirects from terms of the form genus family members, genus order members, genus phylum members and so on. Every article about an organism would have multiple redirects of this sort.Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per smart people above; "spirochetes" are any bacteria in the phylum Spirochaete, Treponema is a genus of spirochetes, and T. spirochetes isn't a thing—GB and Scholar search finds exceptions which prove the rule, eg 1 2. Don't know about Neelix (is this Neelix?) but a redirect page leading to an article explaining that Treponema are spirochetes seems like it would clear things up nicely, given that apparently intelligent laypeople like Steve Quinn can find the term elsewhere and become confused. FourViolas (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neelix created thousands (someone may have the actual figures - might be tens of thousands or more) of redirects. The majority are useless, and quite a few are incomprehensible, while others are potentially harmful. They are speedy deletable without needing to go to RfD, but some tagged speedy do go to RfD at the discretion of someone reviewing the tag. I've deleted a load, and declined others. As to redirecting, I agree with Rupert Clayton in opposing making it a redirect. All Treponema are spirochaetes, and the Treponema article will come up in the Search box before anyone starts on the next part. Keeping it as a redirect will help to perpetuate the error. Peridon (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Digital dermatitis. CatPath originally prodded this stating, "The spirochetes that live in the lesions of digital dermatitis and in the termite gut are not a single species but multiple species of the genus Treponema." But after poking around a bit I think Digital dermatitis is a better target as it quickly clarifies the whole potential misunderstanding, "Anaerobic bacteria, including spirochetes of the genus Treponema, are found in the lesions associated with the infection." ~Kvng (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but... If DD was the only (or even the main) thing caused by Treps, OK. But what about syphilis, yaws and others? Redirecting this to anything other than Treponema would be false targetting. And unnecessary, as the main target would pop up in search before you'd finished typing. Keeping this would perpetuate the idea that it's a species. Peridon (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirect. As mentioned above Treponema spirochetes is not a species and never has been. This case is different from Tuna fish → tuna because "Tuna fish" and "Tuna" are both common ways to refer to the same thing. "Treponema spirochetes" is not a common way to refer to "Treponema", "Digital dermatitis", or anything really. It's just a mistake (as you can see from the lack of hits from a Google search). As such, it doesn't make sense for us to redirect it somewhere. People won't come looking for "Treponema spirochetes" and need to be redirected. Ajpolino (talk) 23:53, 26 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. J04n(talk page) 13:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Team Abbreviations[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:FANCRUFT. These are scoreboard abbreviations used on television. MSJapan (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has no place in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a fan-site website and it is not a repository for anything someone decides to post even if they deem it useful. This is not notable by any means. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Possibly merge into National Football League - If these are officially used abbreviations, the information may be useful in the main NFL article. I'd recommend asking on the NFL article's talk page whether inclusion would be useful. If deemed useful there, then this can be a redirect. Otherwise, simply delete. If discussion will take a while, go ahead and simply delete this page in the meantime. Fieari (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not encyclopedic at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 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. With no prejudice against the creation of a redirect to one of the suggested pages J04n(talk page) 13:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flop-hit[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic term coined by a critic which has not gained widespread use, coupled with WP:OR to illustrate it. MSJapan (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No one else seems to use this term in this way. Lots of google hits for "flop-hit", but they all refer to something else, most commonly things like sentences that happen to end in "flop." with the following sentence starting with "Hit" as a verb. If no one else uses this term in this way, then it's a non-notable neologism. Fieari (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Frank Rich as preferred WP:ATD. Possible search term. Verifiable content. ~Kvng (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourced content in the article and the only sources I found are1 and 2. The first one doesn't actually use the term Flop hit and the second is only a very trivial mention and does not expand on the term to even a dictionary definition level. Not seeing any value in merging any content and as mentioned above Flop hit itself is a search term that could lead to a lot of different places. AIRcorn (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NEO, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No need is evident for a separate article about this phrase, but the concept—a production that draws a large audience but is nonetheless unsuccessful from a financial viewpoint—is a significant one in entertainment industry economics, and I considered suggesting a redirect and selective merge to our existing article box office bomb, which is where box office flop currently redirects. The catch is that the content of box office bomb is currently limited to motion pictures, even though some of the concepts in that article could also apply to stage productions such as those Frank Rich wrote about. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:25, 26 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.