Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 June	25 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. Despite the pleas of the article creator, there is clear consensus here to delete. If Mazarae grows then certainly it may be eligible for inclusion at a later date; See WP:TOOSOON. KaisaL (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mazarae

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

Non-notable, no evidence of notability. Also promotional and COI issues, but while those can be fixed/dealt with it’s still not notable. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nominator that this article does not meet our notability guideline yet. DeVerm (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. I don't agree with nominator that the Mazarae article is promotional, the side doesn't want to make promotion, it just wants to inform people (that are interested into mathematics) that somebody has created a new form of a riddle which is a great development in mathematics. The riddle was a really notable invention in Schaffhausen and in the immediate vicinity. Since 2015 Mazarae is published regularly in two newspapers, as you can see: "Thaynger Anzeiger" and also in the "Neuhauser Woche" which has more than thousands of readers and participants which are trying to solve this new form of a riddle! Tell me, what I have to complement, that there are no guideline problems anymore. (Hanspeterleupp (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline on notability is here: WP:Notability. See in particular the General Notability Guideline which describes what’s expected for notability in concise terms, with links to other pages that offer more detail on each point.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading everything and I saw that the guidelines ask for sources, especially for the secondarys. I think that the Mazarae article is based on the website www.mazarae.ch, also based on the German Wikipedia page called Mazarä as you can see in the References. In addition Mazarae is monthly published in two different newspapers, which should also show the notability enough.

I made some new changes to make the notability more visible for readers of the article. Is it more obvious now? [[[User:Hanspeterleupp|Hanspeterleupp]] (talk)] —Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But none of the sources satisfies the General Notability Guideline. That in one sentence says

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

Of the sources in the article only one mentions the topic, mazarae.ch, and that is not reliable source.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Perhaps in the future, if this form of puzzle starts gaining widespread popularity, the article can be recreated. But for now, it is limited to appearing in two very local newspapers, and has no real third party sources showing that it has garnered any sort of recognition beyond that.64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still too new obviously and my own searches have found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is WP:TOOSOON. At the moment it seems to have limited popularity and there is no indication that it will definitely become popular or notable in the future. Delete for now, but no prejudice to recreating it later in the future when it has actually become notable. That would require more secondary and independent sources to actually talk about the puzzle. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Only one person opined to keep, and failed to provide any policy or sources to support their argument. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Air Raid (Transformers)

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability; one somewhat-reliable source cited which confirms the existence/appearance of a toy, but certainly nothing to ground an article on the character. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A couple of books about the Transformers may provide notability, but not likely. Most of the la search options turned up nothing. Spshu (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Autobots. BOZ (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though there are a number of citations in the article, looking at them reveals that none of them really classify as reliable third party sources that offer any in depth look at the character. The majority of them are listings on fansites, works of fiction, and even message board posts. And even those don't really offer any insight into why the character is notable, just basic stats and toy listings. I was considering the merge to List of Autobots as suggested, but looking at that article, its not really an appropriate place to add any of the information here, that isn't already present there. At the very least, I suppose this article space could be left as a Redirect to List of Autobots.64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is Wikipedia the encyclopedia, not Wikia the fan site, simply nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navent

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

Basically the listed news are only only about funding which is not surprising for a 6-year-old company with information listed about gaining capital and funding, my own searches have still only found a few news talking about funding and otherwise trivial coverage. Notifying DGG for analysis as he also has history with these subject articles. SwisterTwister talk 19:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability, just a corporate ad. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. possibly going to be notable, but not yet. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 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) 01:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Industrial Machine

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

Business fails to meet WP:GNG. Secondary sources either mention this business in passing as part of an article about SAFER Barriers, and an article on one local town news site regarding opening a facility. Suggest Merge into SAFER Barriers. PGWG (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Subject is not notable itself. Only mentioned in passing in RS and local sources. Meatsgains (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one article has significant coverage but that is a local newspaper. Use most sources for SAFER article. Spshu (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP No in depth coverage by secondary sources. MB (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable organization. I've added the reference list from the instant article to the talk page of the article on SAFER barrier, and there appears to be nothing else that needs to be merged. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect if needed as, not only would I've PRODed, there's still nothing actually convincing of its own notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solynta

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

The notability of the company is not established. Definite SPA/COI issues. This may also be a WP:NOTPROMO or WP:TOOSOON issue. They're doing research, and giving interviews and such, but there doesn't appear to be a product out in agricultural use. There are also problems with the sources. The first source, "Towards F1" is a primary paper where half the research team are Solynta's management, so it isn't independent if only for that reason, and if science RS is similar to WP:MEDRS, it's not acceptable. The second paper is about potatoes, and Solynta isn't mentioned in the abstract, though the technique is; therefore the connection made is WP:SYNTH, or it's possible Solynta is one of several companies doing this - there's no context for their business environment, which makes determining notability difficult. The Icon Award is for "innovative projects" (not necessarily, complete, viable, etc.), and there were four winners that year. Of the HighBeam sources quoted for notability in the DEPROD, the first is trivial, the second is a press release, and the third is another copy of the 2014 Icon Award article as a government press release. Those, by the way, are the only sources in Highbeam for this company. Article written by SPA User:Hkruyt, very likely Hein Kruyt, Managing Director of the firm. MSJapan (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability given besides being a "National Icon Laureate", which I can't find any reference to, so still fails WP:GNG. Even their website doesn't claim they've done anything. Maybe they will get sales and write-ups in the future, but there's nothing now. And, yeah, poor sources and COI. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching for news sources, I see two articles in PotatoPro magazine, to which I reply "there's a magazine called PotatoPro?" I think the problems here are several. Although we have a general prohibition on using YouTube sources as a reliable source, there is no such prohibtion on tuber sources. However, coverage in the tuber press seems very weak, let alone the press not read by the tuber-growing community. Perhaps the sources are there and have been all mashed up and/or fried by the search engines. Who knows? It's quite obvious though that this is a non-notable tuber company, and any way you want to slide, mash or fry it, it fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP (but may be nonethless tasty).HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel entirely julienned by your response. MSJapan (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That chips away any remaining notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - MSJapan makes a good case for delete here. ~Kvng (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my examinations have still found nothing actually convincing of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find independent, in depth, reliable sources for this product; hence it fails notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Just FYI, the scientific notability guidelines are usually aligned with general notability guidelines. The main practical difference is that secondary content embedded within in primary sources is often considered reliable in general scientific notability discussions, but MEDRS is dubious about this and prefers dedicated secondary sources such as review papers, reliable books, etc. --Mark viking (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Previously speedy deleted under A7 and G7 by BBB23. joe decker ^talk 02:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poornima Baskar

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

Wikipedia suggested it be deleted Poorni mee (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I submitted article to WP:PROD as I felt it might be asserting significance (making it beyond the scope of WP:A7) however the subject does not (in my opinion) meet the notability guidelines. Author has chosen to bring it here so I will remove the PROD tag in deference to this process. PGWG (talk) 18:28, 24 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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP article of unclear notability, lacking independent refs, and a search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of the subject.Dialectric (talk) 06:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 14:40, 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. joe decker ^talk 02:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abdolrahman Jowkar

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

Article had been BLPPRODed, but Jowkar supposedly died in 1984. Searching for sources I find literally not 1 single mention. Very well, he died age 38 in 1984, could there be any online sources in Farsi? But as it stands now, I'm not even able to verify the man existed. Delete. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence he existed or more importantly competed at the highest levels. Does not meet any notability criteria.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still nothing convincing and with amount of questionability, I would've simply PRODed instead. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @SwisterTwister: I suppose you actually "would've simply PRODed instead", but unless you recently took a crash course in Farsi and searched for sources per WP:BEFORE, such haphazardly drive-by tagging would exclude the possibility of qualified community input. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article with no indication of notability. My google search and searching the UWW database did not turn up anything. I could find no evidence he ever competed at a major wrestling event. Papaursa (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Adam Sandler#Personal life. Note: I'll assess the case for protection separately. joe decker ^talk 01:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sadie Sandler

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

The article is basically a copy of her IMDB entry. Does not meet WP:NACTOR; her roles in film are entirely limited to films her father Adam Sandler stars in, so WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:TOOSOON trump any potential notability for voice roles in the Hotel Transylvania films. MSJapan (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as I myself had also encountered this, there's still simply nothing to suggest if at all moving and keeping the history as there's nothing actually convincing for her own article. SwisterTwister talk 18:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace or my userspace, as it happened to User:Captain Assassin!/Kennedi Clements. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actress who has appeared in films starring her father made by his production company.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Adam Sandler#Personal life. There is little to show that the subject is independently notable of her father. News coverage about her is all in the context of her father, and WP:NOTINHERITED applies. I tried to fall back on WP:NACTOR, but it seems she has only done a bunch of small roles/cameos which can hardly fulfil "significant roles in multiple notable films". Since the title is a probable search target and there is a potential that she may be notable sometime in the future, I am not opposed to a redirect to Adam Sandler#Personal life --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lemongirl942's comment. Potential expansion and a probable search target. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adam Sandler#Personal life as preferred WP:ATD, likely search term. ~Kvng (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note the history of previous attempts to restore and remove the redirect so not only could protecting be viable option, we must also consider the fact there's still nothing actually convincing for her own article, simply connected to the father's article....thus why should we keep it open if there are no signs of her own notability anytime soon? SwisterTwister talk 19:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Putu (mushroom)

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

Putu is a non-English (Hindi?) term for, apparently, puffball-like fungi (see this paper where "putu" is listed as a common name for Lycoperdon and Geastrum). It seems unlikely that there is more to say about it than a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Any in depth content should go on pages about the specific fungi. Plantdrew (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources cited, unclear meaning, other sources which point to likely duplication, and non-English usage. That it shouldn't be an article is very clear. I guess the question is just whether to retain a redirect. We don't typically include redirects from non-English translations, and absent sources which show this to be an English common name, it doesn't seem like we need the redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources and this seems to be a non-English word. I think there should not be a redirect for a non-English word. DeVerm (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-English common name for several species of fungi, not suitable as an article. Agree we don't need a redirect for this. Sasata (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I agree a redirect is inappropriate here on the English language Wikipedia. Also, the content here may have been ripped from here, though that has something to do with music. Odd. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my own searches are still not finding anything confidently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who Am I Living For?

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

Another song failing WP:NSONGS completely. No ounce of third party independent notability, no major chart performance, and no sources indicate that the song was received outside of its parent album, Teenage Dream, either by the media or any journalistic or academic material. Was performed only once on the supporting tour where also it did not receive independent reception. Content in the article is easily found in the parent album article, hence this redundant CFORK should be deleted. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has never had any independent notability whatsoever, and isn't likely to anytime soon if at all. Parent album is more than capable of describing it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing convincing for its own article, apart from the information and sources, it's simply best connected to the album itself. SwisterTwister talk 19:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Highway 401/410/403 Interchange

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

Non notable, sourced almost exclusively to a SPS. Article is also highly misleading, suggesting that the interchange is notable for being under construction for 44 years; it has merely been upgraded at various times. No converage by reliable secondary sources. Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of what I was thinking, as the 44 years claim is patently false, but doesn't the interchange itself still deserve an article? Are interchanges normally given articles like highways are? 157.235.66.80 (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A select handful are, but they are almost exclusively limited to named interchanges that have some historical or cultural significance (eg. Gravelly Hill Interchange). There's limited primary data available and almost zero coverage by newspapers or publications. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, the interchange started construction in 1974 according to this: http://www.thekingshighway.ca/PHOTOS/Hwy401photos5.htm

Indeed. The first ramps (a trumpet), which no longer exist, connected with the then-two-laned Highway 410 were completed in 1978. The outer flyovers to Highway 403 were built from 1977 to 1980, and the inner flyovers between 1982 and 1985. The connection between the 403 and 410 was built from 1991-1992, and the flyover from the 410 to EB401 was built from 1989-1991. New work just began on the missing connections. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS This interchange looks impressive so it deserves to be created.

Keep - Problems with documentation do not mean that deletion is the remedy. Improve documention, or merge content into the intersecting highways. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since verifiability and notability are core policies, deletion is the proper course of action. No coverage by reliable secondary sources means the subject doesn't merit an article. The content of the article is almost entirely unreferenced (the self-published source has no value) and poorly written, and does not belong in any of the three highway articles (two of which cover the history of this interchange rather well). - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I haven't seen any evidence of notability thus far. It would help, at a minimum, if this interchange had a unique name rather than a moniker that perfunctorily describes it in terms of its intersecting highways. I find the claims of 44 years of construction to be overstated and not reflective of reality based on the comments above. Find some "significant coverage in reliable sourced independent of the subject" (i.e. WP:GNG) and we'll talk. Until then, this article fails to meet the thresholds for inclusion, and it should be deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 00:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just one of hundreds (thousands?) of highway intersections. Yes the roads are very major ones, and the intersection is likely one of Canada's busiest, but there don't seem to be any reliable independent sources showing that this is a notable subject. A verified claim of the traffic volume here would help to show notability. Meters (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Imzadi1979 and the WP:NPA violation. It's not nearly hot enough where I am. –Fredddie ™ 23:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G5) - Article's creator is now indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of Hum1969 (talk · contribs). There are no other significant edits by others. --MuZemike 14:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
May as well play it out at this point... Put down some precedent salt as it were. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it is theoretically possible for a highway interchange to merit its own standalone article under very rarefied circumstances, the vast majority of highway interchanges have no independent notability separately from the highways that they're part of — and nothing here substances or sources any reason why this one would belong in the former class rather than the latter. And a highway interchange having been periodically reconstructed or upgraded, in exactly the same manner as every road in existence is periodically reconstructed or upgraded, is not the same thing having been under construction for the entire time of its existence — so the "44 years of construction" claim is bullpuckey, no more true in and of itself than saying that Highway 401 has been under construction for 102 years just because the original Toronto-Hamilton Highway of 1914 wasn't already built to fully contemporary freeway standards all the way from Windsor to Vaudreuil. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I think we can all agree the claim of continuous construction was bogus. Meters (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 18:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing that makes this interchange stand out to have its own article, details can be covered in the articles about the respective highways. Dough4872 04:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero indication that this interchange has any standalone notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my examinations have still found nothing actually convincing for its own convincing article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aurelius Prochazka

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

Prochazka gets passing mention here and there both in the currently included sources and those found online, but I fail to find any significant coverage that would make him meet the basic notability criteria for individual persons. Delete. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable computer programmer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing actually convincing for confident notability, I would've PRODed instead. SwisterTwister talk 19:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Madonna (entertainer). (non-admin closure) SST flyer 07:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Ciccone

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

I believe this article is a classic case violation of Notability cannot be inherited, Christopher Ciccone started career as backup dancer/choreographer for his much more famous sister Madonna. Nowhere in his career did he have any independent notability other than the fact that he's the brother of Madonna. He only released one book and thus his only claim to fame is his book (ironically) about his sister. WP:SINGLEEVENT applies here again strongly according to which "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." It might be worth noting here that based on this I would rather have an article on the book Life with My Sister Madonna and delete this article, it simple does not pass WP:NOTABILITY. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Life with My Sister Madonna; given how he was criticized for inaccuracy within the book but not really noted for much else, people could search for the book's author and land there. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umm @SNUGGUMS:, Life with My Sister Madonna is also a redirect currently. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 16:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, redirect to Madonna (entertainer) as a family member and for his work with her Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is the brother of Madonna, and had minor support roles to her performance. Nothing to make him notable and not enough coverage either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect as there's still nothing at all actually convincing for his own article, there's nothing convincing from his family connections. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Madonna (entertainer) - This is a good case of "notability is not inherited". While the subject did write a book, it was based on their association with Madonna. Even a recent tabloid type article about the subject's marriage refers to them as "Madonna's brother". If the subject is not notable on their own right, it can be simply redirected to the person they are associated with. Since it is a valid search term, I would prefer a redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other AfDs have had similar results: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Bogue. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navier-Stokes equations with Estakhr's Relativistic Correction

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

There are no independent reliable secondary sources discussing this equation. The only scholar hit for "Estakhr's relativistic correction" is this 2015 abstract, with zero GS citations, written by Estakhr. Notability requires in depth treatment in independent reliable secondary sources. The cited abstract is a primary source, that is not independent of the originator. Furthermore, conference proceedings typically have minimal peer review, so I do not think we can accept this source as factually reliable. Furthermore, I do not believe that the discussion of Estakhr's relativistic version of hydrodynamics is consistent with maintaining a neutral point of view. Relativistic hydrodynamics is a mature subject. For example, see the review article Gourgoulhon (2006) An introduction to relativistic hydrodynamics (which has been cited 65 times on Google Scholar). No mention at all is made of Estakhr's work, so an article on this correction appears to be assigning undue weight to a fringe view not held by the scientific mainstream. Lastly, the article was created by an evident WP:SPA, who likely has a WP:COI in this area. The article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estakhr's Constant (physics) was also created by the same editor, and deleted as a hoax. An IP sockpuppet has been lobbying to add similar material to the article Navier-Stokes equations, which is now semiprotected due to this disruption. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG in any case. shoy (reactions) 15:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (duh!), and warn creator. The best thing that can be said about the inclusion of an "energy flux" (which energy? heat?) such as done in the article is that it is dimensionally consistent (I really expected it not to be the case). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have been unable to find secondary sourcing for the Estakhr variant, so this article fails notability thresholds per WP:GNG. We could use an article on relativistic fluid dynamics, but this isn't it. --Mark viking (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could only find one primary source and share the WP:NPOV concerns as well. DeVerm (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Nothing here to keep. BMK (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
SNOW Delete as there's simply nothing actually convincing from both the listed information and sources, nothing to suggest the convincing notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close – Article CSD'ed by Bbb23 under WP:G5. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaquita Smith

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

WP:TOOSOON. No sign of meeting WP:NACTOR. Sourced to IMDB and user-submitted sites, none of which are reliable indicators of import. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself had encountered this and planned to nominate, examining this found nothing at all for any actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 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. joe decker ^talk 01:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Man from Ruin

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

Non-notable film, no reliable secondary coverage, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 12:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation if/when sourcing proving notability per WP:NFILM become available. For the purpose of the article creator, notability giving reliable sources would be things like newspaper articles, reviews in places like Twitch Film, and the like. Routine notifications of events, brief WP:TRIVIAL mentions, WP:PRIMARY sources, or listings in databases like IMDb would not be usable to show notability and in the case of IMDb, the site isn't considered a WP:RS on Wikipedia since it can be relatively easily edited by anyone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the sources say it all and, along with that, there's still nothing else convincing for the independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I'm closing this per WP:SK#3. The fact that the playback singer's name is actually Kumar Sanu (no "h") notwithstanding, two people having the same name is not a valid reason to seek deletion. Even if they did share a name, WP:DISAMBIGUATION is the proper procedure. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 18:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Shanu

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

Kumar Shanu is an Indian playback singer. Not this lawyer. Prof TPMS (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The playback singer's name is 'Kumar Sanu' not 'Kumar Shanu'. Both are totally different personalities. Kindly refer to the References attached to the article including the reports by the most trusted and reliable newspaper of India, The Hindu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahul Kumar Si (talk • contribs) 16:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Shanu is a young lawyer not a singer. He is well known among the law students in India. You are confusing him with Kumar 'Sanu' who is a great playback singer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.183.41.135 (talk) 17:38, 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) 01:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kazimov Javanshir

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

Fails WP:PROF. It is based on a single source, and does not even assert why Prof. Kazimov would be notable beside being a professor. Google search in Azeri and Russian came up short. (There's a semi-notable Azeri-Russian musician of the same name [1].) An article at the proper title Javanshir Kazimov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been prodded, G12'd, G7'd and finally WP:SALTed by Widr. No such user (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. No such user (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero impact on world of scholarship. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as his positions are not convincing for the applicable notability and the Azerbaijani Wiki offers nothing else better at all. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching Google scholar for pieces of his name in either the Latin or Cyrillic alphabets doesn't find enough citations to pass WP:PROF#C1, despite the likelihood that most of the results are not even his works. His administrative position is also too low for any inherent notability, and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Aggarwal

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

Non notable civil servant Uncletomwood (talk) 09:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a run of the mill civil servant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply nothing confidently convincing for independent notability, there's nothing else to suggest any better. SwisterTwister talk 19:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Madhusudhan

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

Non Notable Uncletomwood (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining this still found no convincing signs of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C K Anil

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

Non Notable Uncletomwood (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC) Delete This page is being considered as non-notable and should be deleted since it acts as a Biography of a Living person and lacks proper references.Denver| Thank you and Have a nice Day! (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable civil servant. Google turns up several WP:RS mentions in addition to the ones cited in the article, including several in The Telegraph (Calcutta). However, none add anything of value to those already cited - they're all tiny mentions relating to departmental disputes and reshuffles, e.g. 1, 2 and 3. Also, the sole meaningful link into the article is from one about the school he attended. Narky Blert (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable civil servant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of his positions satisfy the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MP Joseph

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

Non Notable Civil Servant. Article is written in a very biased manner Uncletomwood (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable civil servant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I examined the article and noticed information and sources, but still nothing actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 20:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

F A Khan

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

A search for F A Khan choreographer brings up a "Firoz" Kahn[2] but the only working source[3] is about Faisal Khan (actor born 1966). This editor seems to have competence problems. Doug Weller talk 08:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This editor seems to have made the same error in another article.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sameer Khan (actor) (the sources mention but don't discuss an S. Khan calling him a producer). Doug Weller talk 08:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing close to indication of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still nothing convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Health Shield

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

Clear WP:PROMO created by SPA. MSJapan (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most "Health Shield" searches in reliable sources is not for the subject in specific thus, lacking notability. Meatsgains (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both my searches and examinations found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 20:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems entirely promotional. Like the other editors that have commented here, I searched but couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources. Notability has not been established, when judged according to WP:COMPANY or WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines at Married Women beauty pageants

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

SPA-created WP:INDISCRIMINATE list article. MSJapan (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did not meet notability guidelines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm still not convinced how and why this should be a separate article with these contents, as it would be better compiled at another article. SwisterTwister talk 20:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Gielan

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

NN person. As best as I can tell, she's a former CBS anchor, and I'm not sure why she's notable for that alone - it's clear that notability is not presumed via the job. The first set of GHits is personal/non-independent sources. MSJapan (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable television journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I had actually planned to comment sooner, there's simply still nothing at all actually convincing for independent notability....and that's why I PRODed this. SwisterTwister talk 20:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B.g. baarregaard

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

An article about a songwriter, producer and DJ possibly failed WP:MUSBIO. Thank You – GSS (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Quick only search verified lack of notability. Aust331 (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I both examined this and my searches and conclusively found nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 20:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As per comments, this doesn't appear to be an actual proposal for deletion on notability grounds. The article needs work, but the nominator's points are not grounds for an AFD discussion. Nobody has weighed in on the notability of the subject, so I am closing this as a keep. A renomination is welcome if a specific case can be made for deletion on notability grounds. KaisaL (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heamin Choi

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

This article has several issues. (1) The English of the article is poor, at best. (2) The article shows lots of bias in the writing style. (3) The articles are all from Korean sources.

Overall, it seems to be written by somebody who either knows Heamin Choi or at least is a fan of his. Sonoflamont (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment poor style is not reason to delete, it is reason to edit, sources can be in any language, so the sources being in Korean is no reason to delete. Bias (language advocating a given point of view) can be edited to be neutral point of view language. None of the reasons given are reasons to delete. The Korean sources may not meet RS standards, but being in English is not an RS standard. None of the reason given to delete are reasons to delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And if all these changes are made, then we will have an article that is too short by Wiki standards. The vast majority of the statements are written like this: " Despite of the difficulty in adapting to GT car from formula car, he has won the championship for the GT1 Class." It's not a Wiki page; it's a glorification page. It's just as bad to make the edits and be left with a stub or less, no? Sonoflamont (talk) 09:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No valid reasons for deletion (instead of just using maintenance tags as has already been done) has been given. Whatever arcane sport notability rules govern this racer, someone else will hopefully comment. The nominator is advised to consider consulting actual policies like WP:NMOTORSPORT before proposing another deletion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:02, 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. joe decker ^talk 01:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines at third-tier beauty pageants

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

NN list of people in NN pageants. MSJapan (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did not meet notability guidelines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The meaning of 3rd tier beauty pageants weren't discussed in the article as well --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:42, 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. No question of the notability of the subject has been raised, even by the nominator. WP:AFD was not the suitable forum for this discussion. In my view - should the subject's notability be questioned at a later date - they may be renominated without prejudice, in light of the lack of a case being made on this occasion. KaisaL (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ramkumar Sharma

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

There is none by this name as member of the Rajya Shabha .The correct name is Ram Kumar Verma. Shyamsunder (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK, if this person actually has a different name, could this just be moved over to the correct name? Seems simpler than deleting the whole thing. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per ~~Northamerica1000~~ Ultraexactzz. Page now moved. OnionRing (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah. There's a problem here: article creator forked the article to Ramkumar verma, complete with AFD template pointing here, which I've now moved to Ram Kumar Verma. There are now two identical articles. I will request G6 deletion of the new fork, so this article can be moved to that name. Sorry for the extra bother. OnionRing (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@OnionRing: I didn't participate in the discussion. Perhaps you are referring to Ultraexactzz? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, thanks - correcting my error now. OnionRing (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have history-merged Ramkumar Sharma to Ram Kumar Verma. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:23, 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. KaisaL (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Network Installation Manager

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

Another unsourced AIX component. Lack of sources means it is not a suitable merger candidate. MSJapan (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to List of TCP and UDP port numbers#Registered ports. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it has nothing to do with IP port numbers? It is a management system... DeVerm (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll get no argument from me. My reasoning was simply that the proposed target is the only other place on Wikipedia that mentions it. Frankly, I wouldn't be opposed to an outright deletion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sources come up when searching for the abbreviation "NIM" or better "AIX NIM" DeVerm (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - "Lack of sources" was in regard to the merge, as that is predicated on current state of material. The general issue I saw is that I don't see (in general)how we have an article on a tool/component of an OS without falling into WP:NOTGUIDE; so much of what's out the comes from a usage standpoint, and it's not like a physical tool that you can track developments in easily. MSJapan (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple WP:BEFORE-style search shows agood number of RS for this topic. I added 9 references to the article, 3 of which are primary and 6 secondary. There are enough in-depth RS to confer notability per WP:GNG and to support a modest article on the topic, and a plethora of authoritative primary sources to draw from as well for uncontroversial knowledge. A notable topic and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was not a clear case for me, hence my earlier comments. Now that Mark has aded the references I have to conclude that the article meets our notability guidelines, plus I think this AIX component is worthy of it's own article not just because of it's role in AIX but also outside that like in Linux. I hope that editors improve it but until then it can stay as a stub. DeVerm (talk) 14:59, 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 no consensus. As there has been no additional contributions in the past two weeks, I am closing this as a no consensus as no appetite to discuss to a conclusion appears to be present. A merger of this and various articles not nominated at AFD has been suggested, but I will leave that to editors to discuss outside of this forum as they wish. KaisaL (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Universities Guild of Change Ringers

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by the creator, User:Oosoom, with the following rationale "rm PROD with intention to supply reference for record breaking 360 method peal". I am afraid, however, that even with the new refs this article fails to show notability. The references included do not suggest that this organization has received in-depth coverage; and a passing mention here or there does not suffice. If the coverage has been in-depth, links or scans would be appreciated for verification. Also, The Ringing World is a very niche source and likely fails Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Audience. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bellringing, within the scope of this discussion, is an activity in many countries, including Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa and the US as well as the UK.

The Central Council of Church Bell Ringers (CCCBR) [4] is the representative body for bellringing and has affiliated societies in many countries: South African Guild of Church Bell Ringers, The North American Guild of Change Ringers, the Irish Association, The Australian and New Zealand Association of Bellringers, Ladies' Guild of Change Ringers (international), Associazione Suonatori di Campane a Sistema Veronese (Italy).

The CCCBR decides the technical specifications for ringing methods, compositions and “world records”, much as an international sporting body.

The Ringing World [5] is the official journal of that organisation, reporting ringing performances (all peals, worldwide) and world records. The CCCBR and The Ringing World are therefore of worldwide notability and authority.

Manchester Universities Guild of Change Ringers has been repeatedly mentioned in this official journal and has been a pioneering organization in the advancement of the science/sport of bellringing. As many of the achievements and activities of this society predate the internet they are not readily discovered by a search engine! Oosoom ^Talk 11:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Today many sources are digitized, and accessible on Google Books or such. But I agree it is not required. What is is the confirmation that there are sources with in-depth coverage. I will repeat my request for scans of the Ringing World articles so we can confirm they are, well, in-depth. Whether the publication itself is able to confer notability is an interesting topic, again, in light of Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Audience. But first, let's ensure we have this in-depth coverage, shall we? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cannot provide you with scans of the Ringing World as it is a copyright publication. I cannot find it on Google Books. Back copies to the year 2000 are available for purchase as PDF scans on DVD. Oosoom ^Talk 15:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can provide me with such scans under fair use. You can alternatively provide a more detailed description of those articles, such confirming they are in-depth, and telling us the paragraph/word count. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Looking only at the 1974 volume of The Ringing World I have uploaded fair-use pages to demonstrate the standing, composition, performance and world record setting achievements of the MUCCR: File:RW MUG peal 100 Triples world first 14jun74.jpg, File:RW MUG notice of long length attempt 5 july 1974.jpg, File:RW MUG attending CCCBR meeting 22mar74.jpg, File:RW MUG peal 360 Triples world first 26july74.jpg, File:RW MUG composition original royal 1114 bobs and 18 singles HMMcN handbells 3may74.jpg, File:RW MUG peal composed mcws hmmcn 18jan74.jpg, File:RW MUG peal MUG Major 19apr74.jpg. There are many other performances and mentions even in this one year. The MUGCR have operated from 1948 to the present. Oosoom ^Talk 18:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I do appreciate the scans, but the coverage that I can (barely) see in those scans does not seem to be in-depth. (And I still have concerns whether coverage limited to this publication alone is sufficient). Let's see if anyone else will comment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources have been found establishing Ringing World as a long-running major magazine for this type of percussion, hence it seems a reliable source. All the scans taken together (thank you Oosoom for those!) might be in depth, but there isn't a lot about the guild beyond notes on performances and people involved. In addition, MUGCR is listed in a couple of national level bell ringing directories [6], [7]. Hence the guild is of some note. But I haven't been able to find in-depth news articles or documentaries about it. Basic facts are verifiable, but I haven't found a good merge target. Reluctant delete at this point, but I will keep looking. --Mark viking (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Nobody is disputing that the guild exists, the problem is that it does not appear to be important enough (WP:N, WP:NORG) to be included in an encyclopedia, which after all is not Yellow Pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked at Category:Bell ringing societies in England, and frankly, the articles there all seem to fail notability policies (some more then others, ex. Oxford Society of Change Ringers). I agree with User:Mark viking that it would be good to save them. I'd encourage User:Oosoom, who seems to be interested in those topics, to consider merging all of them into Bell ringing societies in England. Individual societies may not be notable, but their grouping, as a whole, is more likely to be encyclopedic. If no such merge is done, I intend to, reluctantly, review and likely nominate for deletion each of the remaining organizations in this category. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 01:27, 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) 06:39, 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 keep. KaisaL (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Wenzel

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

Delete: fails WP:GNG; insufficiently notable. Quis separabit? 15:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep actually passes WP:GNG on all 5 points that make up the description at GNG. Two specific articles from independent sources that address the subject in detail and is the primary subject of both independent news articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:23, 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) 06:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article needs expansion, but there are enough sources that could expand it into a decent article. Do not confuse stub status with non-notability. Montanabw^(talk) 22:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is quotable--"Do not confuse stub status with non-notability" maybe even worthy of a short essay.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the comments above, he clearly passes WP:GNG. This obviously needs some expansion to contain anything of value, but as Montanabw so eloquently said "Do not confuse stub satus for non-notability." ERK^talk 09:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bricktown Center at Charleston

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

too small to be notable as a mall. 5 stores 'total DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable cluster of big box stores; the sign in front of the entrance doesn't even mention Bricktown at all. Nate • (chatter) 02:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur with DGG, examining this found nothing actually convincing for notability at all. SwisterTwister talk 18:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:GNG; not finding any significant coverage in source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply for obviously failing WP:GNG Ajf773 (talk) 06:26, 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. Actionable consensus toward keep. KaisaL (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Waugh

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

The question in this case is whether or not the article passes the GNG. Although the subject is an artist, he is unable to meet WP:ARTIST has his work has not received sufficient attention.

There are a lot of references, but in the end all but three are irrelevant in terms of notability. The rest are either self published, primary or unrelated to the subject. The three which might be relevant are:

James, David E. (2003). The Sons and Daughters of Los: Culture and Community in L. A. Temple University Press.
Kaplan, Ben (January 2002). "Each of These Men Has a Secret". Marie Claire.
DuValle, Christopher (August 9, 2012). "Death of a Dummy (Apri) Review". Best Horror Movies.

The Marie Claire one sounds good, but it seems too trivial. It isn't about the subject, but a fluff piece where a person tries to guess the secret of a small number of otherwise random people. If it was focused on Waugh I'd be inclined to count it, but there is not enough there for it to count towards notability. The David James book is a bit better, as it describes an early video piece, but it does so in two sentences while describing every piece on display at the event, and provides no information about Waugh. The third, Christoper DuValle, looked possible, but proved to just be a reader-submitted review of a YouTube video, and was not included on the list of official reviews on the site.

So I guess it comes down to whether or not the David James and Marie Claire pieces are sufficiently non-trivial. I'm ultimately going with no, and they aren't enough to pass the GNG. Bilby (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject satisfies criterion 4(b) of WP:CREATIVE, which reads "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". The David James book does not describe every display at the LA Freewaves festival, doing so would require a book thousands of pages long... the festival is days long and covers multiple locations (even broadcasts over television). David James mentions several primary displays at the festival from that year; the primary exhibits display at the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art, where Freewaves also holds its opening ceremonies. The Freewaves festival is one of the top festivals in the field of experimental media arts and video, the field for which Waugh is best known. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 11:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes a "substantial part of a significant exhibition"? A single work in a much larger exhibition does not seem to be substantial - 140 artists were included, all at the MOCA. If there was anything else - an interview with him somewhere, or a review of his work, or really anything in any reliable source beyond a single two sentence description of a single work I'd be with you. But there's nothing. No other significant exhibitions which included his work, no published interviews in reliable media, nothing at all. Just once, many years ago, a short video was displayed with literally hundreds of other works. There isn't even a second mention of him being there - just the two sentences in a single source. That doesn't feel like it is enough to be a "substantial part". - Bilby (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well-familiar with Freewaves. Exhibiting at the MOCA portion means he was a significant exhibitor at the festival. That's where the festival's most important exhibitions are held. The exhibitions aren't all at the MOCA, they exhibit in various other places throughout California, broadcast on TV and online. Your argument misses this point... it sounds like you're trying to apply a GNG argument regarding sources, but that's moot as CREATIVE is established. The mention in "Sons and Daughters" is among several other people at the entire festival and the book itself seems to be about street and experimental art in L.A., not just about Freewaves and certainly not exhaustive in covering all exhibitors. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is one work among 140 artists. This is a significant festival, but by no means is it shown that this is a substantial part. Substantial part requires more than a single work by an artist that's made no impact anywhere else since then. At any rate, we don't have a source saying that this work was at the MOCA, only that the LA Freewaves was held there. If the argument is that all the works were at the MOCA there's no special significance in this one. If being at the MOCA was special, then we need something independent saying that it was there. This is one of the problems with the article as it stands - a lot of claims not about Waugh, but seemingly making the subject sound more important than he perhaps is. - Bilby (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing against settled fact. The MOCA displays are the most important of the festival, which has multiple locations. The total count of exhibitors at the festival is beside the point and the fact that Waugh hasn't made any (known) impact elsewhere is also irrelevant; CREATIVE 4(b) says nothing about "making an impact elsewhere". The book chooses to mention him and a couple others out of 140 exhibitors and he exhibited at the MOCA portion, this fulfills the requirements of WP:CREATIVE 4(b). The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy to accept that 20 years ago one of his videos appeared at a significant exhibition, even if none of his works appear to have done this agin. But to satisfy WP:CREATIVE, his work needs to have been a substantial part of the exhibition as well. There's no evidence that this is the case - one work among 140 other artists, is not a substantial part. The single mention of that appearance we have isn't singling out Waugh - Waugh's work is only mentioned because it was part of a bigger display which demonstrated a theme that the author was discussing. We don't even know for sure that he was a t the MOCA portion, as we don't have an independent source on that, but that wouldn't be enough.

Fundamentally, there is no sign that this single work was a substantial part of the exhibition, and no sign that he has done anything significant since then. Unless we can prove that it was a substantial part of the exhibition - and the only mention of it that we have doesn't prove this - there is no sign that he passes WP:CREATIVE, in spite of claims to the contrary. And there is nothing else, at all, to base his notability on. - Bilby (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"But to satisfy WP:CREATIVE, his work needs to have been a substantial part of the exhibition as well." As two people have repeatedly told you, IT WAS, and the supporting evidence has been described at length. You seem to be ignoring us so there's no point in responding further. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 15:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring you. I just can't see how a single work out of 140 artists that has only been briefly mentioned by a single source can be seen as a "substantial part". You've offered two reasons for thinking that it was. One was that it was displayed at the MOCA portion. While that alone doesn't prove that it was a substantial part, we don't even know that it was the case, as we don't have a source saying that it was. The second is that being mentioned in James' book proves it was substantial. However, James only lists the work as a part of a set, and that is only listed because of a theme he is discussing. Even then, what it shows is that one person noted that the work was on display and mentioned it - not that it was a substantial part. There are no other independent sources, anywhere, that even mention the work in relation to LA Freewaves, and nothing that shows that it was a substantial part. - Bilby (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again. The MOCA portion is the most important part and displaying there means it was substantial. This isn't even debatable. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions, then.

1) How do we know that just being included at some point at the MOCA as part of this particular exhibition means that it was a substantial part, as opposed to a normal, everyday work that was part of LA Freewaves? Was he one of only 10 artists on display? Or one of 100 artists on display?

2) Do we even have a source saying that his work was at the MOCA? There is so little on this artist that we don't even know that.

I know you want to defend the article, but the point of requiring that an artist is a "substantial part" of a significant exhibition is that just being shown at an exhibition, once, in someone's career is not enough to say that we can write about them. The assumption is that if the artist was a substantial part of a significant exhibition then there must be valid material written about them so we can create the article. In this case there's no evidence he was even at the MOCA, much less that he was a substantial part. And that is why there is no material we can use to build an article, because other than self published sources there is virtually nothing on him. - Bilby (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bilby, I tried to explain this down below. By displaying at the MOCA portion of Freewaves, he is automatically considered a substantial part of the festival. The MOCA events are the highlight of the festival. It's significant honor to present at Freewaves and presenting at the MOCA is like being a headliner. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that we don't have a source saying that he presented at MOCA. We don't know that he was there. - Bilby (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I emailed the subject and he provided me with a link to a scan of an e-mail conversation he had with Anne Bray, who is the founder and exacutive director of Freewaves. The Email confirms he exhibited at MOCA. Since it's primary and the number of primary sources are already a problem for some folks I won't add it to the article, but it's 100% confirmed. I can drop it here if you like. EDIT: There's also a scan of the catalog for the event which lists him. Also primary. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but a scanned email from the subject is not a reliable source. - Bilby (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not for sourcing an article, which is why I didn't add it. But anyone can look at it and see it's not fake, nor do I believe the subject to be a liar. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a contentious point, and the only source we have is a document scanned by the subject. Does the catalog at least say how many works were at the MOCA? That might be something useful. - Bilby (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The Master. It would be nice to have more third party sources but there's no reason to delete since he fulfills CREATIVE. Freewaves is the main experimental media arts festival in the western US. Night Ranger (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LA Freewaves is definitely the top exhibition in Waugh's field and exhibiting at the MOCA portion definitely makes him a significant exhibitor. This fulfills WP:CREATIVE. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not notable, non reliable sources, almost all of Jesse Waugh's art exhibitions are related to getting his MFA (later in his life). One art exhibition (such as LA Freewaves) is not enough to be considered notable. Jooojay (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE 4(b) disagrees with you. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 16:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see proof that Waugh was a substantial part of any exhibition... Jooojay (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I accept the judgement of those better informed than me as to the importance of Freewaves and the MOCA portion of it, and the Marie Claire thing, silly though it is, also shows he's getting some publicity. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article subject passes WP:CREATIVE because of criterion 4(b) which says "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". The work at MOCA suffices there. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 11:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, in addition to 4 (b), Waugh seems to fulfill Creative 4(d) as well. One of his books (his books are produced as art pieces) is in the archive of multiple art museums and galleries, including the Tate, the Thomas J. Watson library at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC, the Brooklyn Museum, and the University of Washington Libraries (click the link and type any zip code) [8]. Night Ranger (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that one is just puffery. His book is self published, and that four libraries have a copy isn't really any sort of indicator of any sort of importance. If he passes, it is on the LA Freeviews appearance. - Bilby (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline language specified by NR sounds like it adheres to what's described by him/her above. All art is self-created and if the books are artwork then they count. There are many historical examples of books produced as works of art. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is really stretching it. Using the first of those, the Metropolitan Museum of Art has 900,000+ volumes in their library. Being one of almost a million volumes is not a significant achievement, and having a book in their library is not being "represented within the permanent collection". - Bilby (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notable subject, AFD withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amoycan Industrial Centre fire

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

Wikipedia is wp:notnews, Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I withdraw my nomination. Apparently, from a Hong Kong perspective this is a notable event, according to the comments and ivotes below.

I believe that it should be kept as it is not just a routine news but an incident with a considerable amount of notability, as it is Hong Kong's longest-running fire in 20 years.^[1] --Peter Yeung (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Deadly industrial building blaze claims life of second Hong Kong firefighter... with no end in sight". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 24 June 2016.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please add a "Keep" at the very first if you support for keeping the article please. KyleRGiggs (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This has potential to be merged to Ngau Tau Kok § 2016 fire, rather than just be deleted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator). I think this meets inclusion criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (events). The event has had a great depth of coverage from all media outlets in Hong Kong, as well as some regional and international coverage [9]. The death toll is quite notable by HK standards, as is the length of the fire and difficulty in extinguishing it. There is already talk of lasting ramifications including addressing the widespread issue of mini-storage facilities in old industrial buildings [10]. There has also been coverage of discord within the Fire Services Department in relation to this fire [11]. The disagreement between the Buildings Department and other engineers on the structural safety of the building is also notable. Citobun (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This event should be regarded as one of the two most disastrous fire ever in Hong Kong. It broke the Hong Kong record time of a building caught fire. Actually there would have a lot of investigation report to be announced at the future. There is a large notability for this event. KyleRGiggs (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems from a Hong Kong perspective this is a notable event, according to the comments and ivotes above. So, I am withdrawing my nomination for deletion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Kumar Chauhan

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

Non notable Middle level Civil Servant. This article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Uncletomwood (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nomination says it well, he is a middle level civil servant with no notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The support of an IP editor did not after over two weeks yield any additional evidence of significant coverage, so I am going to action the consensus of the debate. KaisaL (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Xiaojun (tai chi)

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

Martial artist that fails both WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. There is no claim of notability except for claiming that after 9 years of study he is a leading proponent of his art. Being a proponent is not the same as being an expert and I've never known any Chinese martial artists to be considered one of the best in such a short period of time. There's a lack of significant independent coverage except for saying he's a teacher and gives lectures, which most martial artists do and doesn't make him notable.Mdtemp (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the article's lack of sources, he doesn't seem to meet WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. The real problem was when I searched on his name. It was a bit tricky, given there are professors and a PLA general with the same name, but when I focused on tai chi I did not see the significant and independent coverage needed to meet the GNG. Of course there may be sources in Chinese, but that's beyond my language skills. Papaursa (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "Wang Xiaojun is practicing Taiji Quan and Shaolin Kungfu from 9 years", not "for 9 years", i.e. from the age of nine, for nearly 40 years. This interpretation is supported by the source cited in the article, which says "from the age of six, under his father's guidance", but that's not a contradiction because it may well be that he started formal training at the age of nine. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to some significant independent coverage of him? I'll admit I'm somewhat handicapped by the fact my firewalls block out Chinese websites. 00:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. A search for Chinese sources will only return some coverage of someone else with a same name.--Antigng (talk) 02:39, 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) 15:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Alliance Foundation

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

Doesn't appear to exist now. References are dead. Mr Sutton's Bloomberg biography doesn't mention it. Some press releases from 2007 on his article about what it was going to do. Rathfelder (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Only other relevant source I could find is here. Meatsgains (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:N. Source searches are only providing passing mentions in RS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As the guidelines of WP:NSONG are quite clear to action upon, I am closing this as a delete despite the brevity of debate. The extra week gave a reasonable opportunity for notability claims to arise and no more contributions were forthcoming. KaisaL (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are U Ready

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSONG. Can't find any listing in charts to give it notability. - Pmedema (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bushido Blade

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

There are a total of three Bushido Blade articles. The Bushido Blade, a 1981 film, Bushido Blade (video game) and its sequel Bushido Blade 2. Nothing that can't be explained by a hatnote (which already points to this disambiguation page). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid dab page; nothing wrong with a dab page with 3 entries. Boleyn (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it works, don't fix it. Andrew D. (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bizarre nomination. Per Andrew D, it's fulfilling its function precisely. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 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. joe decker ^talk 01:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes Will Rise

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

Fails CORP John from Idegon (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. As the Nom has indicated, it fails CORP. - Pmedema (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as by far nothing minimally convincing, only expected sources and nothing at all better, there's actually no other context too, to presume there would be anything convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Tom29739 ^[talk] 20:08, 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) 01:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AAFID

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

Non-notable intrusion detection system. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This is where the term comes from; it looks more like a research project than a working technology. There are a few papers around, but probably all from connected research groups. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It indeed appears to be a cancelled research platform with only some primary sources. DeVerm (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Books is finding quite a few books and guides but there's still nothing particularly noticing of a notably improvable article. SwisterTwister talk 23:07, 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 speedy deleted G7 by Sphilbrick. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 16:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Language of Business TV Show (TV Series)

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

Reason Gstoller (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC) Will have new author create to avoid conflicts of interest. Gstoller (talk) 04:47, 24 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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:06, 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) 01:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Fitzpatrick

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

Does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources and does not meet the subject-specific notability guideline (WP:NAFL). Jenks24 (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable sportsman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage, amateur level only, no evidence from reliable sources (official records) that he was ever a rookie listed player in the AFL. The-Pope (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Flickerd (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I still have not found anything for convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no real consensus at this time. As Robert particularly objected to the referencing which has been improved (albeit scarcely), and there has been no real discussion of the subject's actual notability, it is difficult to action a delete. The lack of participation may be down to a lack of real case being made for Meghan not meeting the notability criteria, and hopefully any relisting can explain the grounds for this side of the nomination more thoroughly. KaisaL (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Jadhav

AfDs for this article:

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

The references do not appear to be independent and reliable, and this article appears to have too much focus on family rather than career. If additional references about his career can be found in seven days, Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Career related links are added now. Iamnewtowiki (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep issues related for deletion of the article has been solved. Pls inform for any issue left. Do not delete. Iamnewtowiki (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and the closer should seriously examine these Keep votes as they have simply tossed a few links at the article but not actually fully clarified how and why the article is independently notable. I myself have found nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 21:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks Macdonald

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

Article provides no evidence of notability Maproom (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How am I able to add notability? We have external references from the London Stock Exchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterstewart1988 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peterstewart1988: you need to find some reliable published independent sources, with significant discussion of the subject, and cite them in the draft. The LSE links establish that the company exists, but they are more registry entries than actual discussion. Incidentally – are you the Peter Stewart who is Digital Marketing Executive at Brooks Macdonald? If you are, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, you have a conflict of interest and are strongly discouraged from editing the article (though I must admit, you have avoided bias and promotional language). Maproom (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak keep There is, I think, a presumption that public companies are notable, so this does scrape through IMO but it does need work. ukexpat (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

maproom:

Shawn in Montreal:

I've added several reputable sources in the history section. Would this provide eveidence of notability?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my own searches have simply found nothing better and my examining the article also found nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable company. Tom29739 ^[talk] 21:45, 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. joe decker ^talk 01:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Crossroads

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

Unsourced, lacks significant coverage; no more than trivial mentions (directory listings) in books or reliable online sources czar 02:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 02:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced and non-notable. Indeed, the article doesn't make any real claim to notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I still found nothing to suggest the needed substance for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Master Arcane

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

WP:PROMO, doesn't meet GNG. The removed prod indicated that the subject didn't meet GNG as well. I've left the sources as they were, but they don't appear to be RS - there's blogs, Youtube videos, a poster(?), etc., but it's entirely possible that these are RS for the subculture. I find the article to be very WP:PROMO as well, and I'm not sure there'd be anything left of value if it was trimmed down. MSJapan (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches and examinations have still found nothing for convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Lee (artist)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC - all but three of the "sources" are his Bandcamp page. Of the remaining, one is a blog, which fails RS, one is a portion of a daily article in DIY (which isn't good enough for significant coverage, as he's not even the lead article photo) and the last is not only in Spanish, but doesn't appear RS. Not a signed artist, so clearly not on a label of note and has no releases. Very likely a vanity article with sockfarm. MSJapan (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MSJapan: did you look at the two sources I left on the talk page when I deprodded this? ~Kvng (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: - I might ask you the same thing, because if you had, you would not have asked, for two reasons: a) those sources were already in the article's reflist, and b) I addressed them directly in the nom, specifically stating "DIY isn't good enough for significant coverage" and "An article in Spanish that appears to not be RS." MSJapan (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I asked you because, as nominator, you're the one with the WP:BEFORE responsibilities. My WP:AGF with you on this has worn a bit thin. ~Kvng (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage from RS. Spanish article appears on website where I could find no editorial policy. Gab4gab (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I still am not finding anything else confidently and substantially better. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to JavaScript templating. KaisaL (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vue.js

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

WP:PROMO, does not meet GNG. Deprodded as "claim of notability in download statistics." There's one RS in here from InfoWorld, and that's about it. Jaxenter is essentially less of the same information, and we don't take user-gen content from repositories or Meetup.com as RS. Medium.com is a blog, so the Laravel recommendation is totally false - one user shows how to use it; it's not an endorsement. MSJapan (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to JavaScript templating, where it is mentioned. I found two InfoWorld articles [12],[13], but both have a lot of quoting of primary sources and not much secondary commentary.--RS, but not in quite enough depth. The download stats are an assertion of significance sufficient to avoid a speedy deletion and perhaps enough to cast doubt on a prod, but not enough for notability, because you can't build an article on a download stat. I don't see any good merge target. A redirect to JavaScript templating would be reasonable, but a merge would be unbalance the article. VueJS or vue.js are reasonable search terms, so a redirect could be justified. --Mark viking (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect instead as my own searches have found not found substantially better, this can be redirected however since it's connected. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to JavaScript templating per Mark viking above and also because it's a valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rapport congruency

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

Flat-out incorrect. Made-up term, and unsourced because of it This is rapport, but this is unsourced and we're never going to find anything using this term because it's not real. "the tendency to form a rapport" in the lede is "rapport building", and the rest of it is some sort of psychological opinion as to why you build it. I'm going to also point out this article has been unsourced and in its present state since September of 2004. MSJapan (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unreferenced and worthless little stub about a non-notable phrase used in a handful of e-book study guides. I can find no evidence of significant coverage of the phrase, which is nothing more than psychobabble. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I have found nothing better and there's also nothing else actually convincing here. Delete as there's nothing convincing from keeping this as is with no available substance. SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmood yaghoubi

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. No proof / reference provided for notability. Unverified claims. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 03:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent, reliable sources to establish notability. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are some claims of significance but this is frankly best restarted altogether, if at all, to ensure the best substance, information and sources. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Frida

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

Promotional, but speedy decline. Borderline notability at best; and borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is another example of it being too soon, nothing at all suggestive of anything minimally better convincing, some sources but those alone are not going to substantially save this. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, neither this subject or the founding designer appears on the Dutch wikipedia. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Netherlands Harper's Bazaar piece is the most substantial of the given references, but is a brief Q&A with the founder rather than in-depth coverage of the firm. Nor are my searches turning up anything which could meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What I recall as being effectively the same article text was previously submitted on May 26th by User:Alexandrafrida, which account was then blocked for promotional editing; the present version was subsequently submitted by a WP:SPA. AllyD (talk) 10:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article is written like an advertisement, and is barely notable. Tom29739 ^[talk] 21:44, 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. Sandstein 11:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ClickaBet

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

The references are actually press releases making an announcement of the firm's existence, regardless of where published --just read them. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as regardless of any other amount of coverage, this is still noticeably too soon and nothing else convincing would suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find sources reaching WP:GNG. --joe decker ^talk 01:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No compelling reason to keep, particularly in light of the brevity of the article. The arguments in this AFD have been minimal despite two relistings, but given this as a new creation may have viably met the CSD, I am happy to close in this way. @David Gerard: I have not redirected as part of the close as I am not clear that Ravenous (band) is a reasonable redirect to Funker Vogt that somebody might search; However, I would not object should you choose to do this. KaisaL (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenous (band)

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

This article has been tagged for citations and notability since January 2012. Searching through Google for variations of "Ravenous synthpop band" don't turn up any promising results. FallingGravity (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Funker Vogt - David Gerard (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then Redirect if needed as I nearly speedied this myself, nothing actually minimally convincing of any substantial notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kasma Loha-unchit

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

See WorldCat and my searches here, here and here (I also found nothing at Highbeam so I'm not listing that link); overall there's simply nothing else actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of news and reviews about this author. Also, she does appear on HighBeam. I'm adding sources to the article, which include "Asian Pages," "Chicago Tribune," "Baker and Taylor Author Biographies," "Restaurant and Hospitality Journal," "SF Gate" and more. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:54, 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 nomination withdrawn. I've performed some of these deletions and of moves before. Somehow I overlooked the matter of moving the Sputnik Monroe (wrestler) article to this one. Since I'm involved, I've tagged the article for the page move per WP:G6 for another admin to perform. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnik Monroe

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

After the deletion of Sputnik Monroe (band) occurred (AfD), this disambiguation page now has only one entry; not needed at this time. Does not qualify for WP:G6 speedy deletion because the title does not contain the word "disambiguation", so bringing to AfD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should just be a {db-move|Sputnik Monroe (wrestler)|only one of this name, clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC}. No need for an AfD. Boleyn (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as per Boleyn - was just coming here to make same point and found she'd beaten me to it. Or list as an uncontroversial technical move at WP:RM. PamD 09:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FREAKAZOiD

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

Professional Counter-Strike player who made some minor news due to an in-game incident, and was eventually dropped from his team after "disappointing performances". Google hits for 'Freakazoid Counter-Strike' include basically these two news items - fails to establish notability. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per failing WP:GNG and WP:1E. Sergecross73 msg me 23:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to mention at Cloud9_(esports)#Counter-Strike as he is most prominent for this incident, which is covered there. All other hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search are passing mentions—nothing in depth on his play. czar 23:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptually, I can see that, but I certainly don't think he's the primary topic for Freakazoid, unless you want to literally use his goofy capitalization scheme currently used in the article as the redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would normalize the capitalization before redirecting its contents, yes. Note to closer: The Daily Dot links are down right now, otherwise I'd comment on them. When I searched the same website earlier, I did not find enough coverage apart from C9 to warrant a separate article. I'm also not confident about the reliability of sites like TheScore and PVP. czar 17:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if there's eventually a consensus to redirect this page, we may as well just delete it instead, since it would be an WP:XY that could equally point to Cloud9 or Echo Fox. (this is not a vote, just to be clear)--Prisencolin (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect later if wished, there's still nothing actually convincing of both a current and future substantially convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess this is just a matter of principle, but I believe the sources that cover this subject are enough to meet WP:GNG. It's also not a WP:1E because there is notability outside of the bullying incident, as the sources suggest.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are there that covered him in significant detail about things not related to his incident of being caught bullying someone else? All the significant coverage seems to be about that than anything else. Sergecross73 msg me 02:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are stories about him being dropped from C9 (unrelated to bullying incident), being picked up by Splyce and Echo Fox and a couple of interviews from reliable sources.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Neutral. I did some searching (admittedly, not a huge amount). What I'm seeing is mostly hits for Freakazoid!. Those that look like they are for the subject of this article all totally unsuitable as sources; a gaming wiki, and things like twitter and youtube. The onus is on Prisencolin to present specific sources and explain why they are sufficient, not just assert that they exist. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Daily Dot, ESPN, Yahoo, and Breitbart News are a reliable sources. PVP Live should be, but I suppose I'll need to double check. There have been discussions about TheScore eSports and it may or may not be a reliable source.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the quick reply. I'll go along with the Breitbart article; it seems to be a reasonable publication (not NY Times quality, but certainly having some editorial control) and the article cited is clearly more than a passing mention. So, that's one source. I'm not finding the Daily Dot citation, however, can you supply a direct URL? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are several articles [14] [15] [16] and more from google search--Prisencolin (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have to admit, the Daily Dot sources you present do seem to meet the letter of our requirements for WP:RS (the first one has WP:1E issues, but the others don't). Still, I'm having a hard time with this. One thought is that I just can't see that covering a professional gamer as a legitimate encyclopedia topic (although, I freely admit that's already a lost cause). Another thought is that I'm having trouble with a source which describes itself as The ultimate destination for original reporting on Internet culture and life online. A big part of what's wrong with Wikipedia is that it's (way) too much focused on pop culture, current events, and things which are easily researchable on-line. In some senses, we've become a blog dressed up in encyclopedia drag, and using sources like The Daily Dot just reinforces that. So, I'm going to remain neutral on this (call it IAR Neutral if you must). But, thank you Prisencolin for responding to my queries. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles shown by Prisencolin seem enough for this to pass the WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The prospect of discussing notability guidelines for eSports subjects like this has recently been raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notability guidelines and policy for eSports, where contributors here may wish to add their thoughts. KaisaL (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. eSports is an area we seriously need to look into (see my comment above). An issue we have on some online issues is that we look at source names and use them as a rationale to keep, rather than source contents. I fail to see how any of the coverage is significant beyond the eSports community, and that is the important thing. KaisaL (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The concerns over lack of substantive sourcing are convincing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Splash (Scottish band)

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

Hello there, I still think this article should be deleted. Two of the links in the references are still dead. The dead Youtube link didn't really prove any notability anyway. Neither did the other one. What else do we have? They appeared on a Des O'Conner's Pot of Gold show once - so what? They don't seem to have won it - not according to the reference provided. What else do we have - various low key business adverts which shouldn't be on Wikipedia anyway and the band's own advert. According to user Atalantic306 they've appeared 'regularly on mainstream TV'. Well no proof has been given to show that they have. I think this is the very type of article which takes away Wikipedia's wish to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia and not treated like a search engine. Hence my wish to take this to AFD for a proper evaluation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.175.199 (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Created using the rationale left by the IP on the article talk page, I have no opinion in this matter. -- GB fan 10:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as one of leading Scottish show bands, but think I was mistaken about regular television appearances, may only have been on a tv talent show. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems quite clear-cut to me - I fail to see any reasonable claim to meeting WP:NMUSIC, certainly appearing on a Des O'Connor talent show doesn't count. (I thought this was about Splashh at first.) KaisaL (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still nothing to suggest the needed substance and the listed sources are certainly not convincing. This can be restarted if needed when better. SwisterTwister talk 20:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Firstly, there are hardly any reliable independent secondary sources available which speak about this band (the references to talent agencies/event listings do not count). This fails GNG. Trying to fall back on WP:BAND I realised none of the conditions are satisfied. Essentially, this is a local band which performs at weddings. I decided to also have a look at their facebook page just in case it is genuinely popular, but found only 2783 likes. As nothing indicates it is popular, I think is a clear cut delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

St. Maximilian Kolbe Parish

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH in my view. There are multiple mentions in The Catholic Telegraph ([17]), which has a fairly large audience, but I do not think that can be considered independent coverage, and I could not find anything better. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- I see nothing in this article to mark this church out from 1000s of other NN parish churches. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as between the current article and then everything else that is available, there's nothing to suggest this can be substantially improved to the level of accepting. SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maya (2016 film)

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

Unsourced, no indication of meeting WP:NFILM. Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking beyond the article:

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Maya Movie මායා Donald Jayanth Ranjan Ramanayake Pubudu Chathuranga Upeksha Swarnamali EAP Films

Comment: it seems notablity might be determinable, and this would then best benefit from editorial attention, rather than deletion. WHAT I discovered is that a horror film by this title released in 2015 with multiple reviews.[18][19][20][21]. So we need to find sources for a 2016 version. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the above search criteria I can not find anything apart from Facebook and YouTube pages that refer to this film. Two out of the three references cited in the article don't even mention the film at all. There is nothing to substantiate compliance with WP:NFILM. Dan arndt (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly too soon if at all, there's not the needed substance to suggest this particular article can be sufficiently improved. SwisterTwister talk 20:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alavan

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

Not at all a notable subject. They are past of Hindus and devoted to a Hindu goddess Kali. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 13:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The community is noted in volume 40 of The People of India but, as so often, that is just plagiarising an unreliable Raj source, viz the work of Edgar Thurston. I can't find any other useful mention. - Sitush (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all minimally convincing of its own substantially notable article. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Detensor Therapy

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

Promo material. Similar material has already been deleted twice, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Detensor as well as at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Detensor_Method. Clearly, this is an ongoing spam attempt. I did try to speedy it, but a user with one minor previous edit popped up to delete the speedy tag. Nat Gertler (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Material now deleted as a creation of a blocked user. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:35, 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 redirect to Momotaro Densetsu. The consensus is to redirect (which I'm going to do), but Momotaro Dengeki 2: Momotaro Thunderbolt seems like an unlikely search term, so I'm also going to create Momotaro Thunderbolt, and have that redirect to the same place. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Momotaro Dengeki 2: Momotaro Thunderbolt

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

I took it upon myself to completely rewrite it a while back in copyedit attempt, but it's been sitting around as an unsourced stub ever since. Today, two Google searches confirmed my fears: neither this search nor that one showed any results from independent, reliable sources. It appears to not be notable in the slightest, and as result, it'll pretty much just sit here like this forever. I believe we should delete it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese wikipedia has more info. 桃太郎電劇2 85.76.80.67 (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. However, I see that most of it is related to in-game features, and that no additional real-world information is provided. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Momotaro Densetsu, the series article. With no sources in the article, no sources to steal from jawp, this topic lacks significant coverage. czar 23:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as there's still nothing actually convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch McCoy

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

WP:BLP of a local-market television journalist, whose only discernible claim of notability per WP:JOURNALIST is a two-day blip of coverage when a viewer criticized him for being "too gay" -- but that just makes him a WP:BLP1E. And of the seven sources here, three are Twitter tweets, one is his staff profile on the website of his own employer and one is a blog entry -- which leaves just two pieces of actual reliable source coverage with which to measure notability, but that's not enough to pass WP:GNG in the absence of a demonstrable JOURNALIST pass. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local reporter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm still not finding anything else actually better, apparently only noticed for the apparent controversial events. SwisterTwister talk 20:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was : Deleted - Original research (copy of a research paper); unfree - permission only extends to Wikipedia and without modification. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ionospheric ionization temperature

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

I'll let this quote from the article speak for itself: "PERMISSION IS GRANTED BY FREECOMWIRELESS.COM EXCLUSIVELY FOR WIKIPEDIA.ORG (WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION) TO DISPLAY THIS CONTENT UNABRIDGED UNDER THE ARTICLE 'IONOSPHERIC IONIZATION TEMPERATURE" (emphasis mine), which is against our policies. I would have tagged this under G12, but I'm not sure if such cases qualify under G12. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is an improper grant in any case. How do we know the author has those rights to grant? How do we know the material even belongs to freecom? ubiquity (talk) 03:49, 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 speedy delete. A7 and G11 DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Israel

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

Does not appear to be a notable person. While a search reveals several hits, this link (a vaguely promotional piece) was the only coverage I could find specifically about him, the rest of the hits I could find are brief mentions and his Huffington Post articles. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I am early closing this under our snowball clause justified by Ignore all rules and saving everybody's time as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2010–11 Southend United F.C. season

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

No sources, notability, little to no prose Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NSEASONS (you'll notice on {{2010–11 in English football}} that every other Football League club has an article for this season). Needs improvement, not deletion. Number 5 7 16:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NSEASONS as the club was in a professional league. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NSEASONS and as above - every other football league club has a season article for the year.Atlantic306 (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. AFD is not cleanup and it's from a FPL so let's just end this already. Smartyllama (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets all guidelines, nominator did not do the research. KaisaL (talk) 17:15, 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 redirected to Pavel, then deleted. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 03:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel (disambiguation)

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

~~Utterly redundant dab page. Everything is already in the main page except for a fictional character who isn't even mentioned in the novel article and a See also entry.~~ Clarityfiend (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I'm just going to boldly redirect it. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:40, 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. joe decker ^talk 01:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Age of Extinction (toy line)

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

It's just a trivial list of toys with nothing to establish independent notability from the parent articles. TTN (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious toycruft; keep it on Transformers Retail History Wikia, folks. Nate • (chatter) 02:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I have still found nothing anything actually convincingly better, clearly conclusively Wikia material. SwisterTwister talk 20:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete . Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Conte

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

BLP completely devoid of reliable sources. Of the two sources that were present, one was a 404 and one was a video with no mention of Conte. Could find no sources that show subject meets WP:NACTOR NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless appropriate sources are found. I think there is also a promotional element here, even if not enough of one for speedy deletion. 331dot (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Delete: While it does technically have a credible claim of significance, it certainly does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG in its present state. Looking online, I could find no secondary sources at all - which is atypical for most actors which usually have at least trivial mentions. Appable (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC) Edit: accidentally wrote keep instead of delete. Sorry! Appable (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I'm suspecting that it was created by a sock of Dakotaparty who is known for creating articles about actors and actresses of little or no notability. Sixth o f March 13:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Delete. @Appable:, Actually, Charlie Conte is not an actor. It was just only created by some editor who just think he/she was one of the cast. I spoke with Ms. Barbie Forteza and Ms. Thea Tolentino (the main 2 stars of the show) that they didn't know much about the existence of Charlie Conte. Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 02:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Another case of a "special kid" who wanted to create an article about himself and fantasizing on being a celebrity. -WayKurat (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person in acting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WayKurat. Ueutyi (talk) 04:49, 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. Sandstein 11:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblog (website)

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

Non-notable website. Many references used in the article are primary sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then Redirect to AOL#Content as my examinations and searches have still not found anything actually convincing of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only coverage is press releases, and passing mention. Needs sustained, in depth coverage that is primarily about Autoblog in independent sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jagran. Clear consensus to not keep, but all over the place on alternatives. A redirect seems like a reasonable middle ground. Given the total lack of sources and limited material, a merge doesn't seem like it would be the best choice. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jagaran

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

Completely unsourced, short, no references found on it, probably not even real, not notable. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead as my searches have found nothing noticeably better, nothing else convincing to suggest keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 20:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Culture of India § Miscellaneous where mention of the topic exists, and also as a valid search term. A few sources exist that provide mentions, (e.g. [22]), but not finding significant coverage to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems this is a duplicate article of Jagran. However, it doesn't seem like a hoax. Let me find sources for this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jagran which deals with the exact same topic. We don't need 2 articles on the same topic. However, I believe this topic is notable enough to warrant its own article as it seems to be some kind of cultural/religious practice where devotees stay awake all night and sing devotional songs. Searching JSTOR, I found Fire and Wakefulness: The Devi Jagrātā in Contemporary Panjabi Hinduism which deals with the exact same topic. (If someone has access, please have a look). There was another article Know how you can organise a Jagran at home (although I am not sure how reliable), but it at least shows that this is some kind of folk worship in Hinduism. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Jagran per Lemongirl942. The current content of the article might be unsourced but it doesn't look particularly dubious, and it doesn't duplicate the text at the target, so it seems merging is better than just redirecting. Uanfala (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm usually hesitant about merging unsourced content. In this case, I wasn't able to verify the text at all. Hence my reason for a redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note. It turns out the creator of this article was apparently very fond of creating articles without searching if they already exist at a different spelling. Most are duplicates (but some aren't). The majority of them have subsequently been redirected, some haven't. I've started to go through them now. Uanfala (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Only supporter to keep appears to have a WP:COI and their contributions were sufficiently disputed as to demonstrate clear consensus. KaisaL (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bola Akande

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

Non-notable topic. The only outside media on Bola Akande I could find was this-- an article on a different Bola Akande. tahc ^chat 00:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The user page of the author (Adekande) of Bola Akande currently says "Bola Akande". This seems to indicate the article topic is also the article author. tahc ^chat 00:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a single reliable third-party source covering the subject in some detail. Google News finds some stories about a St. Louis city official, nothing about this person. Huon (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE This is a notable person, there are external links found on the article page written by me Ade Lynda, not Bola Akande. Therefore the article is written by an external source not Bola Akande who is the article topic. Most references are from Bola Akande's website, extra sources found online (which is referenced below in the article) and book Without a Word found on Amazon. This article is about a notable person. Bola Akande is linked on the Wikipedia article List of British films of 2014.Adekande (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another external source is a published Nigerian newspaper 'The Nation Newspaper. Nigeria. Saturday March 26th 2016. Interview by Mr Sunday Oguntola. 'CELEBS WORLD' Column on page 29, 32, & 33.' -Adekande (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the newspaper images are violations of the newspaper's copyright. I have tagged them for speedy deletion and removed them from this page. Even beyond the copyright issue, that was an interview with Bola Akande about her father, not independent coverage of Akande herself. Similarly, Without a Word is authored by Akande, not independent coverage of her. Huon (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass GNG, not enough coverage of her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would've frankly explored PROD instead, nothing minimally actually convincing of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Don Morris

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

Incredibly promotional BLP with questionable claims of meeting WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:ATHLETE. Originally speedied as A7 & G11, but contested by IP editor. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 00:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 00:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 00:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteA completely non-notable amateur athlete. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete applaud the person for his personal accomplishments, none of which tender meeting WP:GNG/WP:ATHLETE guidelines.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing indicates he comes anywhere meeting notability requirements for academics or the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage to meet the GNG. Also fails WP:NSPORT for not competing at the highest level.Mdtemp (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still noticeably advertorial and there's nothing else at all actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SLS International Hotel & Residences

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

Fails WP:GEOFEAT. According to this, construction hasn't yet started, and may not. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC) Magnolia677 (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply fails to contain any notability. Ajf773 (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's by far clearly too soon, nothing minimally convincing as any existing coverage would of course only be about its future plans. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 01:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SLS International Hotel & Residences

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

Fails WP:GEOFEAT. According to this, construction hasn't yet started, and may not. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC) Magnolia677 (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply fails to contain any notability. Ajf773 (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's by far clearly too soon, nothing minimally convincing as any existing coverage would of course only be about its future plans. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ferndale Baptist Church

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

fails WP:ORG . churches are not inherently notable and this seems a small local one with no significant coverage LibStar (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page was no doubt created in good faith, but I don't see sufficient notability to keep the article in Wikipedia. A news search finds a couple of short pieces in echo-news.co.uk about the church's cafe/community centre, but that's all. – Fayenatic London 11:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just an ordinary church, not sig coverage. Neutrality^talk 18:13, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crusher (website)

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

NN startup. Does not inherit notability from its designers, and folded without generating any revenue. MSJapan (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article whose history also included substantial editing from an account whose name is similar to the company founder. Brief reviews can be found from the time of the start-up, often relative to competing products of the time, as is typical / necessary for new product propositions, but I am seeing nothing to indicate notability either for the product or the company. I agree with a previous Prod notice, which was removed without comment, and see no real notability: fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not notable at all. Yes, it existed at some point of time and got a few reviews when it started ([23],[24]). But the depth of coverage is seriously lacking (fails WP:CORPDEPTH). Being a competitor to a possibly notable service, doesn't mean the subject is notable. The website started in Aug 2006, launched in May 2007 and closed in 2008. From what it appears, it was not notable enough or was not widely used. We simply do not need an article about this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:32, 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. joe decker ^talk 01:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lalith Athulathmudali Memorial Prize

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

Notability not established. College academic prize, in several years not awarded at all, and not a single person who meets WP:GNG on the list. Does not inherit notability because of who gives it out. MSJapan (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete unable to locate any independent verifiable sources, that would justify this as being notable. Dan arndt (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still nothing actually convincing for its own notability apart from the school itself. SwisterTwister talk 20:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Deadly industrial building blaze claims life of second Hong Kong firefighter... with no end in sight". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 24 June 2016.

[1]