Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 27 June 29 June >

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 Consensus to delete. Some new users suggested that the number of youtube videos may establish notability. Those suggesting deletion rightly pointed out that this is not a reliable source to determine notability.

There was suggestion of userfication. This was not objected to but concerns were raised that even in user space an article needs to have a reasonable chance to meet the inclusion standards one day. Any user who feels they can bring this up to our inclusion standards based on what the organization is now, not what they may be one day may come to my talk page and ask me to restore it to their user space. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 21:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What Culture Pro Wrestling[edit]

What Culture Pro Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The promotion has held 2 shows, draw around 100 people. It does not meet the General Notability Guideline and presents nothing but self-published sources, except to verify the capacity of an arena - which does not aid the notability of the promotion. There have been thousands of wrestling promotions who've held 2-3 shows and then folded, this may develop into a notable promotion with time, but right now it's too soon.  MPJ-DK  00:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This should be kept. Their YouTube channel is the second most subscribed wrestling channel only behind WWE. They have more subscribers than TNA the channel is so large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.224.183.184 (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In case this is deleted, I'm saving it to my sandbox to preserve it and so it can be worked on. CrashUnderride 00:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy - references are only self published sources including at least one YouTube video and one merchandising page. Of course the text does mention that this organization has made YouTube videos. In any case, I can see no reliable sources available in the press or media in general. The only sources available in the "news" searches are self-published - fails WP:GNG and without a real company track record it fails WP:ORG. Also, per the nom, this article might be on Wikipedia WP:TOOSOON ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of any notability. All just self promotion.  Velella  Velella Talk   15:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm from Newcastle-upon-Tyne and have never heard of them, which is enough for me. Association with a notable website isn't really enough. KaisaL (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • General note - If/when this article is deleted, I request the deleting admin copy the last version and bring it over to my sandbox so that we can continue working on it as a draft. Since I'm not an admin, I don't know if/when the article will go, therefore I myself can't be certain to get the last version. CrashUnderride 06:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not objectionable; However, I think there's a risk here that the article will just be updated with wrestlers and storylines rather than improvements being made to actually assert the notability of the subject. Thus, please do not use your user space to simply host an article, per this section of the user page guidance and WP:NOTWEBHOST. I'm all for you improving the article in legitimate ways but as the sources don't seem to exist in the first place I'm not sure how you'll manage it. KaisaL (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's always a chance that's going to happen. I just would had for someone to have to start from scratch should the promotion take off and meet the guidelines. CrashUnderride 01:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? AFD is not a vote. KaisaL (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: This page should be kept because it is the biggest youtube channels based on wrestling on Youtube after WWE. The views of the episodes are consistently increasing every day. And, why would someone promote a youtube channel? This is the reason they don't have much viable sources. PS: I'm not a sockpuppet. Explained my vote. BAN ME IF YOU WANT. -_- 219.65.32.219 (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This should be kept. Even though the sources are from self promoted pages, they are still verifiable and have more subscribers / watchers than any other wrestling related YouTube page with the exception of WWE, which in itself is notable. The main event of the first episode has already attracted over 180,000 viewers and continues to grow. They also have recognizable names in the wrestling industry attached to the promotion like Damien Sandow and Jay Lethal and have been reported on by many notable wrestling websites. Morph1138 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Morph1138 I would not rely on the number of views a video gets. It is possible to rig that number. Also there is the practice of paying a company that has "viewers" available for just this sort of thing and so on. This happens on social media as well - for example, I can pay to have a large number of followers on Twitter. I am not saying this is the case here, but we have no way to determine if the number of viewers is legit. Also, YouTube and number of viewers is not acceptable WP:Reliable Sourceing per WP:Notability---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the very nature of pro wrestling, famous wrestlers sometimes appear for small, non-notable promotions, often after they've been released by the majors. They'll take the pay packet, after all. So that really isn't a reliable indicator of notability, and this really is just as far away from being a relevant promotion as it gets right now, I'm afraid. (Also note that Morph1138 has created an account purely to !vote in this debate. It feels like canvassing has taken place.) KaisaL (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@KaisaL: I have to agree with you. Referring to the above - notability is not inherited from notable persons, famous or not ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too soon, it was founded only within the past few months, none of the coverage is convincing yet. Delete and restart at best when established, SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on other pages that have been marked for deletion yet managed to stay up I don't understand why. There are numerous pages that have been approved to stay on Wikipedia, some without any citations [1] (self published or otherwise). Also just because something is recent does not make it any less noteworthy. News happens every day and is added to articles on Wikipedia without waiting to see the lasting impact it will have, and as a wrestling fan this is no different. Further to that there are over 1,200 people a day on average looking up this Wiki after only two episodes, which says to me that it is something that people are interested in and is therefore a relevant entry. Heck, I learned how to use Wikipedia just to voice my opinion even though I've been registered for 8 years. Morph1138 (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Mullan[edit]

Jamie Mullan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL as the player has not played in any WP:FPL. Qed237 (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Quigley[edit]

Scott Quigley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL as the player has not played in any WP:FPL Qed237 (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shamsuddin H. Rahimtoola[edit]

Shamsuddin H. Rahimtoola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was tagged A7 for speedy deletion (not by me, although I was involved in the SPI). The administrator declined the A7 because of the lifetime achievement award. I left a detailed message on the Talk page of the article demonstrating I believe that the Rahimtoola who was awarded a lifetime achievement award in 2013 was a different doctor with the same last name. For those who want to follow the evidence, it is still of course on the Talk page. The same administrator said that my investigation was too complicated for CSD and suggested AfD. So, here I am. I don't see anything else in the article that confers notability, but I haven't researched the issue and prefer to let the community decide. Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 15:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher Wallace Laboratories[edit]

Fisher Wallace Laboratories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article violates WP:NPOV, as it is entirely slanted negatively. The company is barely notable, if notable at all, so the article reads as a hit piece rather than something of permanent, historical value. As for the sources, the WSJ piece is a passing mention, as is the Medscape, Scientific American, and MDDI piece. Others are from publishers that are, at best, tenuously WP:RS. Equinative (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree that the article is entirely negative although parts are. It certainly needs improvement but deletion should be based on notability. I think the company may be just notable. Nom said the WSJ article was just a passing mention, but there were three paragraphs on the company and its product. I also found this [1] which is a reliable source, and this [2] which appears reliable. There are lots of other hits so there may be more coverage out there. There are also video on national news (FOX and others) but I haven't tracked them down so they may or may not be valid sources. Overall, the article should be tagged for improvement and kept. I also notice that recently, one long time editor already pruned unreliable sources. Furthermore, the nominator has a declared COI and is employed by the subject. MB (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:GNG, WP:NPOV - Sufficient reliable sources. As far as possible the article represents the subject fairly and proportionately. I see no reason to delete. -- Taketa (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mainly per MB's reasoning and observations. Article has recently moved from being dominated by favorable sources to critical sources, so it might be better wp:balanced, but not deleted given subject's reaching threshold notability. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loafer (Bengali film)[edit]

Loafer (Bengali film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The notability of this film came up at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 21#Loafer (upcoming film), where most participants agreed that the film isn't notable, as it fails WP:GNG. From my search, I've agreed with them, and think this article should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Shafran[edit]

Avi Shafran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough to be here. Doesn't pass AUTHOR and being director of the AIA is not enough to warrant inclusion. Article has no sources and just links to articles. Seems more a promo. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rabbi Shafran gets more than 2,100 hits at Google News, but they appear to be almost entirely (a) op-eds he's written, (b) letters to the editor he's written, and (c) quotes from him as "spokesman for Agudath Israel". I found an interview with Rabbi Shafran, but no in-depth coverage. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 12:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Rabbi Shafran is an incredibly prolific Orthodox rabbinic blogger and op-ed writer, and is often the target of topical and personal attacks by people with opposing views on the internet. But aside from the interview cited by User:Malik Shabazz above, I have not found an article about him personally, aside from his own blog. Despite his name recognition, he does not meet Wikipedia's GNG policy. Yoninah (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep strong. Satisifies person is regarded as an important figure, and as per above name recognition too, satisifies person has created .. a significant or well-known .. collective body of work, and as per above 2,100 hits too, satisifies multiple reviews, for example a very basic google search pops up [3] [4] [5] in the first hand fulls of results reviews / commentaries so no doubt there are many more of lesser and better quality. While not a perfect test against WP:NJOURNALIST/WP:AUTHOR I think does more than just enough to satisfy notabilty. Aoziwe (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Aoziwe, your first two sources are non-RS and blogspots. Re The Jewish Week source, plenty of people respond to Shafran's columns. The problem is that there is nothing written about Shafran himself. Yoninah (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I get that. My point was that there is a lot of stuff out there not primary, as I admitted of very wide range in quality. Note that WP:NJOURNALIST/WP:AUTHOR does not require stuff about the author. It is the collection of work, or about the author, or combination/s there of. I am not going to die in a ditch on this one at all. It just seems to me that even the deletes above instinctively agree that this guy is notable but just does not neatly fit the current written definition. If we agree there should be an encyclopedic article about him then we just agree to break the rules. Our primary objective is I suggest that we as the wikicommunity build our own consensus to build a better encyclopedia. We are not here to rigidly follow the status quo. If that was the case Jimbo Wales would never have created Wikipedia in the first place ? The rules are here to help build a better encyclopedia, so if they get in the way and we agree then we just do what is best. Wikipedia is not here to give meaning to the rules. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He's not important, he's a spokesman for an important organization. Does the VP of Marketing for Coke have a Wiki article? He's not notable, he may be searchable but that is just because of his job. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Shafran works as a spokesman for an organization with a substantial public profile, this means that his opinion pieces get published and that his name appears in the press a lot. But he appears in the press as a spokesman, and spokesmen are not automatically notable. I see from the article that he wrote a couple of books. But I searched and found no independent sources on those books. I do see that it is a useful funciton of this encyclopedia to enable people to look up the names of people they see quoted in t the press, and find out something about them. But while either the authored books or the spokesman role might have generated the kind of coverage (profiles, analysis or reviews of work) in secondary sources that we require to establish notability, I cannot locate such sources. Failing significant, reliable, secondary sourcing that supports notability, I don't see how we keep the article. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:51, 6 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. Not a snowball's chance otherwise. Also a note that ESPN and PC Gamer are indeed reliable sources. czar 18:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The International 2016[edit]

The International 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL - Hasn't happened yet, and is duplication of material (pre-tournament info from The International#2016) sourced to a non-RS source. Pre-tournament info always goes in the The International in its year section. The International 2015 (and previous separate articles) focus specifically on the tournament in August. There's no RS coverage, obviously, because it hasn't happened yet. MSJapan (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The WP you posted literally has nothing to do with this article, this is an upcoming event and all of the things written in the article have been verified, there's no "foretelling" going around, Wikipedia doesn't only have events that happened or are happening, it also has upcoming events, and this one is coming up VERY VERY soon, and as a matter of fact the open qualifiers are taking place as we speak. Kabahaly (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I vote to keep, as the article does have third party coverage on it already (1, 2, 3) (the qualifiers are just wrapping up). The article will be eventually recreated in a few weeks anyway, so why not simply improve the page? We have articles for Super Bowls that won't happen until 2021, so why don't they get deleted too? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article you claim it duplicates has none of the information and appears to be a disambiguation page. There is reliably sourced information about a tournament that is very soon. Enough already with the WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Smartyllama (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is for an upcoming, massive sports tournament that will be active very soon, so let's keep it. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 03:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As noted, with the tourney now about 1 month away, RS pre-event coverage has already started. Even without that but knowing previous events were covered sufficiently after their conclusion, there's reasonably expectation at this point that nothing will prevent this event from occurring and the same type of post-event coverage would happen, so its also reasonable to keep for that reason. (In contrast, if this was January 2016, I would question the need for the article at that time). --MASEM (t) 19:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't mean there can't be articles about upcoming events, it says we can't speculate about them. The 2020 Summer Olympics are also upcoming, and those are four years away. The notability of this event has been established, so there's no reason to delete the article. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The event has sufficient coverage to merit keeping it, a few examples of sources reporting on it; [6][7][8][9]. As mentioned, CRYSTAL does not always apply to thing that haven't happened yet, as long as there is enough reliable coverage that doesn't require speculation, it's free to stay. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:09, 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 redirect to Analogue (album). (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 14:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Birthright (A-Ha song)[edit]

Birthright (A-Ha song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUM. PGWG (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:48, 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.  Sandstein  16:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avisoft Fibre[edit]

Avisoft Fibre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable company -- minor internet provider with no substantial 3rd party references -- just an entry on a list DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I couldn't find any references either. Non-notable private company. Fails WP:CORP. MB (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORP. almost a speedy. LibStar (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as my analysis has also shown nothing at all convincing for any minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into TPG post merger acquisitions section and replace with a redirect. The article subject is not notable on its own. (TPG Telecom article is also out of date.) Aoziwe (talk) 10:57, 6 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.  Sandstein  13:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BAC Group of Companies[edit]

BAC Group of Companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The first inline source does not mention BAC, while the second is of only local importance, and does not establish notability. The non-inline sources are a collection of press releases and other material that does not establish notability. I could find no substantial coverage of this organization. ubiquity (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first source is apparently not the source the editor wanted to use - it's this one - but the source he did intend to use is still a press release, so there's nothing there. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while this looks like a genuine news article to me, it's not enough to establish notability. Huon (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I removed a load of dross from the original version and tagged it for notability but there has been no improvement since.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I would've also explored speedy, as there's still nothing minimally convincing for the needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 6 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 Doctor Eggman#Voice actor portrayal. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Pollock[edit]

Mike Pollock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He's notable for being Eggman in the Sonic series, but anything else? Raoul Contesta is way low on the pokemon characters list. Is there something else that would make him enough for WP:ENT? He does attend a bunch of anime conventions in the NY/NJ area. Maybe Meat in Ultimate Muscle, but that isn't a major anime production in the US. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like, you said, Eggman is plenty notable (At 13 years, he's held the role longer than any other English actor), and while Raoul is low, being the narrator for 125 episodes and three movies is pretty significant. Plus there's 15+ years worth of other stuff on his resume, most of which are notable enough to have pages on this wiki. And the con attendance isn't just in NY/NJ; he did a con in LA just two weeks ago, according to his Twitter. I'd say that's plenty. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article still needs more secondary sources. Con profile writeups can sometimes be primary self-published sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A need for secondary sources hardly demands deletion; it just means someone's gotta do some digging, which honestly shouldn't be that difficult. Deletion is an extreme solution to a minor problem. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A need for secondary sources is the main reason why deletion discussions exist... Either you have sources to introduce or you don't. czar 18:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article could use a few more citations, but it does a pretty good job of establishing his notability. WP:ENT doesn't say they have to be multiple different roles; playing the same main character throughout a long-running series, as well as playing notable supporting roles in several other series, should qualify. --V2Blast (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sonic counts as one major role in the franchise. Pokemon is potentially the second one, although "interim" makes it sound like a minor role with a handful of appearances whereas 125 episodes is more than a typical interim narrator. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Interim" Narrator is only Pollock's pet name for the role; the role itself is that of the actual series narrator. Pollock took over midway through the sixth season when Rodger Parsons, the previous narrator, departed the show. However when Pokemon USA took over dubbing responsibilities from 4Kids, Parsons became the narrator once again. Hence the "interim" nickname. Also, I'd argue Viva Pinata is another notable case, as Pollock voiced Langston (a series regular) in both the television show and the video game it was based on (as well as its sequel). With the exception of series antagonist Professor Pester, Langston is the only named character to appear in both the cartoon and games. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 05:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yeah, I agree, cause there are a lot of sources that Mike has voiced over the years, ya know! ;) NJOrozco 06:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norozco1 (talk • contribs)
It needs sources that aren't just name drops or casual mentions though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and yet at the same time, it has to be reliable enough to be included in the article as well, like anime & animated shows that Mike was credited for, ya know! ;) NJOrozco 00:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norozco1 (talk • contribs)
Not the ones prior to this AFD! Rotten Tomatoes biography is based on the Wikipedia article so that's no good. None of the details surrounding his involvement in Sonic is referenced except the very last part in 2015. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so we just need to find some reliable sources that connects to his Biography, and that surround his involvement in Sonic as well! :) NJOrozco 00:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norozco1 (talk • contribs)
Keep - Clearly notable. The need for additional secondary sources is no reason to delete an article. Sundayclose (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! ;) NJOrozco 06:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norozco1 (talk • contribs)
No, the need for secondary sources is necessary for WP:GNG: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.". The only ones provided so far are primaries such as the writeup from Sega Blog regarding Sonic, as well the convention profiles. Crystal Acids, BTVA, ANN cast announcement only provides sourcing that he does appear in the credits for the show. They do not go over his career in detail. There is none of the significant coverage presented so far, so that needs to be shown in order for this article to have a chance of staying. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC) updated 14:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't of said it better the myself! ;) NJOrozco 22:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Doctor_Eggman#Voice_actor_portrayal. Users canvassed via this tweet. All sorts of classic Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid above. The article has been refbombed but it's easy to tell that most of the sources are either primary or unreliable (BtVA, Soundcloud, Sonic Blog, Crystal Acids). A person is not independently notable for their own Wikipedia page just because they are "known" for something. Ostensibly that being known for something leads to actual significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) such that there would be enough secondary source content to, you know, actually write an article. Right now I'm seeing passing mentions in Animenewsnetwork sources and the rest is junk. The "delete" is since there is no information worth merging, and the redirect is because his name is prominently mentioned in the character article, so as to be a useful redirect. But not enough for an article and a shame on the canvassing. czar 18:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The references are there to only show that he voiced in those other shows. They do not show that they are significant secondary coverage over multiple works besides the Eggman / Sonic ones of course. They are not refbombs as they aren't there to support keep, otherwise I would have withdrawn this AFD already. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the refideas I've added to the talk page are more primaries in the form of interviews. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found one article by the school he visited: [10] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Refbomb" isn't only to keep articles—it's to fluff up an article to make it look like it's cited well. As an encyclopedia, we're a tertiary source of the best secondary sources. If we need to use a ton of primary/unreliable sources in order to write an article, we should be questioning the widespread notability of the subject. czar 21:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you stop being an ass about my efforts to find notable sources? I've already explained multiple times that BTVA, Crystal, ANN and other primaries only provide RS evidence that he did indeed was credited for those roles. And the primaries are just being piled on as refideas for now as few of those are able to be the secondary RS acceptable for WP:LSC It's clear from the refideas that yes, he voiced Eggman in the Sonic franchise for the bulk of his career, that it's his most famous voice acting role, he gets a ton of interviews from all sorts of sources, and that he probably has some insights and perspectives on portraying his character. I still stand on the position that this article is lacking secondaries and something to cover a second major role in another franchise, but I'm sick and tired of your assumption that filling in filmographies is refbombing. Adding an ANN cast announcement for Berserk the Golden Age is just that. It doesn't say hey the person is more notable. It works for filmography, nothing else, not GNG. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking Crystal from this discussion. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe Czar is trying to "be an ass" about this (that wouldn't make sense, you both share the same stance of wanting to delete the article.) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's just saying "Don't be fooled by the long list of sources, there's not enough RS's with significant coverage to meet the GNG". Some editors, sadly, take a look of 20 sources and go "Wow, that's a lot. Its clearly notable!" without actually looking to see that the sources don't help meet the GNG at all. I think he's just addressing that sort of editor. Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. AW, not sure how that can even be misconstrued as a personal affront, but I'm happy to discuss more on my/your talk page if you want (would be off-topic here). Know that there's no animosity on my end. czar 18:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect This does sound like a good solution. If enough secondary sources can be found, the article can always be recreated. Especially considering the offsite canvassing. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 18:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd expect some canvassing given that there is a connected contributor that has edited here, and unfortunately some smearing of editors who are trying to figure this out. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply How is that a good solution exacrly, cause in my opinion, I still think that we just need to give it some more time before we do anything else, ya know?! :/ NJOrozco 19:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Perhaps but since the AFD will be open of a least a week that should be enough time to find the necessary sources to demonstrate that he passes the notability requirements.--94.90.174.2 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's had enough time—no one has produced sources. If someone finds sources in the future, the content can always be restored. But based on what I see, I doubt it czar 21:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well don't start doubting yourself about this, cause if you give a single shred of doubt, then it's the same as giving up on this article, and we're not about to give up, nor give any doubt on this article, not by a long shot! ;) NJOrozco 23:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
If that's supposed to be a threat, I am sure an administrator will fully protect the redirect, so an article won't be reestablished until he meets our guidelines. Instead of saying empty threats, follow Czar's advise and find the sources needed to rescue this article. Meinnaples (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Doctor_Eggman#Voice_actor_portrayal. I was so tempted to press the "keep" button until I saw the references being used in the article. Other than Anime News Network, and Lulu.com this needs more second party sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note the Lulu.com one is a secondary and was added there to confirm that he was the only one from the previous Sonic cast that was retained. The Sega Blog one is a primary, coming from the Sega Community Manager. But again, that is for Eggman, which isn't the notability problem for this article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect note the Anime News Network sources are casting releases that doesn't meet our criteria of "significant coverage", and the lulu.com source is one sentence long. Meinnaples (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage for Eggman isn't what is in question. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. Note that this is not a "redirect" vote; please delete this article then create a redirect. SSTflyer 03:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do that? Are you trying to nuke its talk page history and logs of its discussions? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • NJOrozco Do you want to take ownership and userify this article? Or move it into draft? Draft may be promising but it'll still need a lot of help to find those secondary sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • AngusWOOF Well, I did got one of the articles back, and still trying to find sources for Brianne Siddall & Janice Kawaye, like any video games, anime, and animated cast announcements or confirmations, but taking ownership and userify of this article as well, I'd say that I'm already keeping track, and trying to edit these articles, and I don't need another one to keep track, so why can't you do it exactly?! :/ NJOrozco 22:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Also @Norozco1:, can you please sign your posts with 4 tildes? You've been editing here since June 2014, you should know that by now. That way people can respond to you properly. Thank you. --‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 07:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just so you know, @Ebyabe:, I always sign my posts with 4 tildes, but if it's the signature that's the problem, then I'll go and fix it, and maybe people can respond to me properly, just like you wanted. Oh, and you're welcome by the way! ;) NJOrozco 22:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect Lots of credits but this has become about one specific role. A role that still needs secondary sources.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Is the notability of Eggman now in question? Ridiculous. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can say that again?! :/ NJOrozco 02:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Let's put that down to me posting from my phone. But critical coverage discussing him in that role would go a long way. SephyTheThird (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect clearly as there's still nothing convincing for his own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral but just looking at the article he looks notable enough to me (so --> keep). Note that if this guy was playing cricket, see WP:NCRICKET, he would have romped it in for N, which allows inclusion for one major appearance even if that appearance was a complete failure. Aoziwe (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal I suggest a new rule for AFD discussions: If the AFD discussion becomes twice as long as the article being discussed then it is an automatic no consensus .. and hence a keep .. ? Aoziwe (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Wow, that's actually a very good proposal that you came up with, and yet at the same time, I can't exactly argue with that kind of logical idea, so I have to agree with you on that proposal dude! :o NJOrozco 12:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Even if that proposal made any sort of sense (it doesn't), you don't propose new "rules" for discussions mid-discussion, much in the same way that you don't make up new laws in the middle of a court case. Its neither the time nor the place. Sergecross73 msg me 12:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rules about rules ? Sorry but I could not resist. Yes I agree. Rest assured I was not seriously making the proposal now. (Yes there a re proper places for such.) Subtly what I was really saying is that if people put as much effort into the article as they put into some AFD arguments, for and against, the article may well be well on the way to being a GA !? I was also trying to make the point that at what point, well before WP:LAME, does an AFD discussion need to to stop relative to the size/value of the article ? Twice was just an arbitrary number for the sake of a point, and not meant to be a quantification. But yes I do think AFDers do need to step back sometimes and have a look at our rules. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't said it any other way! ;) NJOrozco 13:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The size of the discussion isn't really factored in to things. These discussions run for 7 days typically, and if there is a consensus, action is taken, if not, its usually listed once or twice to see if more people comment. Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 6 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 Withdrawn as aside from 1 outstanding Delete vote which was before the recent improvements, there have been no other objections and thus can be withdrawn (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Remic[edit]

Andy Remic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP, does not appear to meet GNG nor do his accomplishments appear to satisfy AUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 16:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It looks like there's enough to justify notability now. The local sources I added mostly just to back one or two things up. The Tor.com source could be questioned, however it looks like it was published in 2014 and as far as I know he didn't publish anything with them prior to 2016, when he put out A Song for No Man’s Land. There were announcements of a release in 2015, but again - the review was written prior to that point and Tor.com does review works from other publishers - they don't exclusively write about Tor releases or authors. Anything after 2015 would be considered primary at this point in time, of course. I'm unsure of the EoSF listing since it's so short, but even without that there should be enough for him to pass right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. He's received two reviews through SF Signal, one from The Guardian, two through Publishers Weekly, and a few from other locations, along with a handful of coverage in other places. Admittedly these took some digging to uncover, so I can understand the cause for concern - for some reason the Internet didn't want to give these up easily. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw: In light of the coverage found I am happily withdrawing my nomination. J04n(talk page) 14:31, 5 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 as not only are the listed votes mentioning this, the nominator itself lists this in bold (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Option C[edit]

Option C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an option for one of TNA's titles. No significant coverage--just routine listing of fight results. An attempt to redirect this article to the main article, where it is already discussed, was reverted. I see nothing to show this should have its own article. I think a Redirect is the right thing to do. I brought it here to obtain a consensus.Mdtemp (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Lennox (wrestler)[edit]

Jordan Lennox (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable pro wrestler. Hasn't made the big-time in pro wrestling, just keeps going around the independent circuit. No significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:ATHLETE applies, and he doesn't meet it. He's never been in a notable promotion, and having wrestled some guys who are now famous because they did make it to a top-tier promotion doesn't make him notable. Non-RS sources abound here, as well. MSJapan (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please do not jump the gun on deleting... Jordan Lennox is one of the most booked wrestlers in NY/Pennsylvania and will be debuting with a major promotion in July/August. I will add more information about his time working for NWA NY and make an update regarding him wrestling for the major promotion as soon as details are able to be released. fishpoison (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is very much WP:CRYSTALBALL - the article can be Userfied.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:10, 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 Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1. Clear consensus to keep, and the nomination has effectively been withdrawn.(non-admin closure) Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Narco-capitalism[edit]

Narco-capitalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is basically a dictionary entry of the terms "narco-capitalism", "narco-state", and "narco-economy"; it thus quite clearly falls under WP:NOTDIC. While the article explains in which context the term is used, it doesn't offer a proper definition. Moreover, the article lacks any content about the historical development of "narco-capitalism", what differentiates it from other types of capitalism, how a narco-capitalistic economy and society functions, which countries are considered to be narco-capitalistic (not just examples!), etc. Even though the article has been around since 2004, it quite clearly doesn't meet the encyclopedia's criteria in terms of style and content. Arbraxan (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We understand GNG differently, then. The standard reads, "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" (emphasis added). As I understand it, the General Notability Guideline relates to the notability of the topic or subject, not the state of the article. Cnilep (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, alright. There seems to be a broad consensus for keeping and thanks to Jonpatterns for his work. I'll leave the request here until the end of the week to maybe get some people interested in improving it and then would simply take the request for deletion down (if that's how things are done). --Arbraxan (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that is not 'how things are done,' here. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and your argument now meets criterion 1 of WP:SKCRIT, from what I can see. I'd non-admin close it myself, but I have already expressed a !vote above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 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. MBisanz talk 02:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Rountree, Jr.[edit]

Khalil Rountree, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable MMA fighter. Has no top tier fights so article was created WP:TOOSOON. Assuming he'll get 3 top tier fights is WP:CRYSTALBALL. No objection to recreating article if he gets 3 top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable as an MMA fighter - the rest is just self-promotion.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peter.Darwinian Ape talk 21:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has a lot of issues. The bottom line is that he doesn't meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters and the references are just routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or userfy It is too soon, but fighter will get 3 fights pretty soon. Also passes GNG with enough independent coverage as seen here [18], [19], [20], and [21]. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering he has only 4 lifetime fights, none in even a second tier organization, the claim he will soon have 3 top tier fights is a bit preposterous. Papaursa (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't GNG trump all? Independent coverage seems to be quite big. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fight announcements and results are considered routine sports reporting and don't contribute to meeting WP:GNG. The TUF coverage is either about results or passing mentions.Mdtemp (talk) 17:28, 5 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. Spam posted by company, account now blocked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comtact[edit]

Comtact (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG for lack of available independent sources that cover the subject in detail. - MrX 14:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digvijay Chautala[edit]

Digvijay Chautala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. From the references given it is not proven that he was ever elected as MLA. This reference does not list him as MLA but Abhay Chautala as the MLA. This reference has nothing in it and this reference is from Haryana Vidhan Sabha and belongs to a different person (MLA) called Ajay Singh Chautala. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Digvijay Chautala is son of Ajay Chautala and now he is MP.Pjlpalt (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He is son of Ajay Chautala and leader of student organisation at National level.117.224.227.3 (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Being a son of someone notable does not make another person notable. Neither does being a leader of student organization make a politician notable. I also suspect that IP 117.224.227.3 is a SOCK of Pjlpalt since this vote is the first and only edit made by the IP. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's particularly still nothing convincing for his own notability, the Keep votes are not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 6 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. When empty was of questionable value but now being populated and by definition a list that will grow over time. Sole delete vote inherently misguided as article title clearly shows the information is not indiscriminate by definition. A list of transfers for a country that has fully professional competition and multiple instances of comparable lists. Hard to see how anyone could offer up a valid deletion rationale. No need to keep open for the sake of bureaucracy. Fenix down (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Romanian football transfers summer 2016[edit]

List of Romanian football transfers summer 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Indiscriminate collection of information. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seeing as how their is no content yet (the article was only created earlier today), it can hardly be indiscriminate. The list also has very and limited inclusion criteria, namely transfers from the 2016 summer transfer window to and from the 14 clubs playing in Liga I for the 2016–17 season. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - like Sir Sputnik pointed out this is a transfer list that is in its very early stages, and is to expand over the course of the transfer window. and is also not in anyway made up or to be breaking any copyrights. DM Trix 14:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I started to put some transfers, so the article have also some references now. Rhinen 28 June 2016
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Kharkiv07 (T) 14:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Erawan Group[edit]

The Erawan Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:COMPANY and tagged for notability since June 2008. Proposed deletion contested by Paul 012. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on the sources provided by Lerdsuwa there does appear to be at least regional coverage in Thailand. The company is listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET100). The article certainly needs much improvement. MB (talk) 04:10, 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.  Sandstein  16:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KENCOM House[edit]

KENCOM House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

zero evidence of notability for this routinecommercial building DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like run-of-the-mill building.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Ymblanter's argument. --Arbraxan (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. A building with no notability. All references just show it exists. MB (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LexisNexis has 61 hits, but 43 of those are company profiles which provide no content about the building. 13 news articles have referred to KENCOM house and 12 of those simply assert it is where some ministry or another is located. Here is the 13th: "John Njoroge Michuki is also credited with overseeing the construction of Kencom House, a Nairobi landmark and headquarters of the bank." Building itself is not-notable. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:01, 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. MBisanz talk 02:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WebTrain[edit]

AfDs for this article:
WebTrain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found this article through an ANI report regarding WP:NPOV. Appears to fail WP:PROMOTIONAL and WP:CORP.

Review of the sources eliminated all but two as dead links. Web searches did not find copies of the sources published by other outlets. Most returned only the WP article and reprints of it. The company is now defunct, and so the creation of additional WP:RS seems unlikely. Searches appear to return mostly or entirely other products or companies with this name.

Article was originally speedy deleted twice. Article was previously nominated for AfD in 2008, and seems to have been narrowly kept based on a WP:COI editor (COIN) presenting a number of sources. These sources now appear to be broken/outdated.

IMO, the sources provided on the 2008 AfD and previously on the article fail to meet notability even if they were well sourced, don't establish the company as a major player even in their own very niche market, and boil down to "we made a program that a dozen or so orgs used."

The founder Doug Hallett may be notable, and some of this content may be suitable for an article about him. TimothyJosephWood 13:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No claim to notability given, and no current sources that imply anything like notability. Current links to this article in WP mainspace are only lists with no text -- effectively an orphan. As a defunct company, notability can only decrease from here. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I worded that poorly. It should have been "chance of notability can only decrease". --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I was able to find an archived version of the British Columbia Technology in Action awards list from 2006, where the company was one of two runners-up for an award; the write-up added a detail about their service. I found one news article, in The Globe and Mail in 2002, that has a multi-paragraph treatment of the company. On that and the evidence of wide adoption—the broken references, including some of the references in that section, have all been stripped out but I suspect some are archived, like the BCTIA one—I think this squeaks by. It is defunct; I found an iffy site actually saying so; but notability is not temporary. Unfortunately the masternewmedia.org review is irrecoverable and so is the source for the Saskatchewan government quotation. I hope more references can be exhumed; search is complicated by the other companies using the same name and probably by old newspaper stories not showing up. But in my judgment it's just on the right side of having adequate documented coverage. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article is the subject of this essay on the Masternewmedia site. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yngvadottir, Not really sure how I feel about this essay. It would be easy to argue that this is a treatise in gaming the system for promotional purposes. It may be just as easy to argue that it is a success story in reforming an editor. I think I lean toward the former, since at least the current WP:COI policy discourages COI editing period. Not sure if there is precedence for applying policy retroactively, or even when the current policy took effect. The author pretty clearly states that their purpose outright was not to build an encyclopedia, but to help market their company.
Regarding the award, I notice that the other runner-up has no article, while the winner does, as does the runner up's founder, Dick Hardt. Although that's not a definite verdict on notability. The founder's page seems to have survived AfD, but it doesn't look like a page for the company was ever created, or survived speedy.
Even so, it looks like the org is a group of companies bound in the pursuit of promoting companies, so it's unclear how much credence to give it. The winner's article does cite the award, but it hardly rests on it. TimothyJosephWood 00:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For an award win to confer notability in and of itself, that award has to be one whose announcements of its winners get covered by the media as a news story — if an award's own self-published list of its own award winners is the only source that can be found, then the award is not notable enough to carry the company's notability. And outside of that, all we've got here is primary sources, with the exception of a single news article which isn't substantively about the company, but merely namechecks its existence in the context of an article whose subject is the general field of e-learning — and that's just not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. And the article still has some PR overtones to it (frex, who gives a flying monkey what an unnamed provincial government bureaucrat said about it in a client satisfaction survey?) None of this, in other words, suggests or sources a reason why it's earned a place in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I would've also explored speedy and PROD, as there's nothing at all minimally convincing for the needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yngvadottir did a good job unearthing sources, but I'm persuaded by Bearcat's assessment of the award. There's just not much here. Mackensen (talk) 01:39, 7 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DWYC[edit]

DWYC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy if G3 applies. Unsourced, and maybe not a WP:HOAX, but this is also not a Radyo5 station in List of TV5 Network, Inc. TV and radio stations (which it should be), and I understand there is a particular issue on WP with Filipino hoax stations. MSJapan (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a blatent hoax as required by WP:G3. If it's a hoax it is either run-of-the-mill or elaborate. ~Kvng (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no reliable sources can be found to establish its notability. Not a blatant hoax anyway. Sixth of March 14:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Fails WP:N. It appears that it possibly exists, and it is listed in various directories available in web searches, but finding no coverage in reliable sources. North America1000 03:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I concur with the nominator, nothing at all minimally convincing and there's certainly nothing to suggest better from this. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 6 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 Soi Cowboy (film). Article can be recreated iff there are multiple reliable sources to support it. (non-admin closure) ansh666 19:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Art Supawatt Purdy[edit]

Art Supawatt Purdy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NACTOR. All of the references are to user generated sites and social media. I could find no reliable source coverage of the subject. JbhTalk 18:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 18:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 18:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have spent more time edited this page to try to meet the guideline. Please recheck and be kind. I am learning on the job here, If you would please kindly advise me to be a better editor, i would greatly appreciate it.
To clarify your claim: " All of the references are to user generated sites and social media"
List of References:
  • Asianfuse Art Supawatt Purdy: Is not user generated or social media but it's Asian Fuse Wiki Asian Fuse Wiki
  • LinkedIn Art Supawatt Purdy:
  • 2008 Canne Film Festival Un Certain Regard Official Selection Page: Is not user generated or social media, but the official Cannes Film Festival Website
  • Thai Film Journal: A blog on the film 'Soi Cowboy'
  • Cannes Film Festival Artist Sheet: Is not user generated or social media, but the official Cannes Film Festival Website
More References for Art Supawatt Purdy:
1. https://www.theguardian.com/film/movie/124581/soi-cowboy - Listed under 'WIth'
2. http://www.filmweb.pl/person/Art+Supawatt+Purdy-884183
3. http://www.newswit.com/.life/2010-07-08/7360aea8223895d082b76c45d852e6f9/
More References:
Like most Thai/American Actor/people, He has a Thai name (Supawatt Aumprasit). His nickname is Art. It's fashionable for Thai Press to call actors and actresses by their nickname and first name only. Thus, he is also known as 'Art Supawatt.'
Searching for Supawatt Aumprasit & Art Supawatt, you get:
1. https://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/ศุภวัฒน์_อ่ำประสิทธิ์
2. http://filmdirectory2013.blogspot.com/2013/08/list-of-thailand-actors.html
Seaching for Art Supawatt & Soi Cowboy (Film), you get:
1. http://variety.com/2008/film/markets-festivals/soi-cowboy-1200522405/
2. http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/737991/Soi-Cowboy/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greekadoniz (talk • contribs)
  • I see nothing of substance in those references, most simply mention him as being in the movie. Also, any wiki is by definition user generated content and therefore not a reliable source. The Thai Wikipedia article does not contain any better sources and the article itself can not be used as a reference because Wikipedia can not cite Wikipedia.

    I know it can be disappointing to have an article deleted but the Wikipedia notability guidelines, in this case WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR along with the requirement for reliable sources exist to both prevent promotional articles and to insure an article is verifiabe. In this case it may simply be WP:TOOSOON for an article. JbhTalk 23:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Please keep in mind that the subject's active career was almost twenty years ago, and most searchable online sources don't stretch back that far, even if WP:offline sources do exist. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before this is a valid argument there must be some indication that offline source exist. In this case it would be demonstrating he meets one of the points in WP:NACTOR. We have nothing which allows to presume sources exist therefore he is not notable per policy. JbhTalk 15:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I looked at some articles in the his categories listed and a lot of those articles of actors has even less references, some reference links to an empty page, but how can those articles pass notability test.

For Example: Category Thai Male Actors Attachai Anatameak Pachara_Chirathivat Prin Suparat - This guy only have one reference and it's Asian fuse, but no notability issue there? Yuke Songpaisan Suebsak_Phunsueb

Category: Male Actor from Bangkok Saran Sirilak

Category:21st-century Category:21st-century Thai male actors Pathit Pisitkul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.87.121.6 (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi, this isn't the strongest or most compelling argument in a deletion discussion (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). The existence of those articles doesn't change the notability standards. You could nominate them for notability, but that's for a different discussion. FallingGravity (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Please check the article for serveral Additional references and informations. These additional items helps this ariticle to pass notability requirement of WP:MUSIC by meeting at least one of Criteria for musicians and ensembles: 1. He has 2 album with a major record lable Warner Music Thailand (part of Warner Music Group) one in 2003 and the other in 2013 2. He recorded a theme song 'Where we'll never grow old' for a soundtrack of a notable film Soi Cowboy (film) )]] directed by Thomas CLay which was honoured at 2008 Cannes Film Festival by being selected for Un Certain Regard.

I am working on finding more references with offline sources. He's been on many covers and advertisement. If I find those references, how can I present them to you and everyone here? Please advise. Thank you.22:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)Greekadoniz (talk)

Please note that "being on covers and advertisements" does not equate with Notability for the purposes of Wikipedia. What is required is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. What that means in practice is something like a minimum of 2 or three articles which devote at least a couple of paragraphs each about him not the movie or others. Simply mentioning he was in this or that movie is not enough, there must be some in-depth coverage of him.

That said it may be easiest to quote some sections of the sources on the talk page. Also you can cite specific sources to specific, substantive, claims in the article. JbhTalk 23:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive my English and my communication skills and sometimes i may not convey what I want to say clearly. This is my first attempt at creating the article on wikipedia, I truely appreciate your patient with me. What I meant about seeing him on the covers is that I remember reading about him many years ago when he used to be talked about in the news alll the time. His story inspired me alot. I probably can find those magazines articles but how do I present them to you. I also found some clip of his interview on famous TV in thailand on some website, can i copy a link to this article of deletion for you to see? THank you again for your patient.05:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Greekadoniz (talk)
Copying links to videos can be a problem, it depends on whether it is from the copyright owner's site or not. If you find better sources then simply rewrite the article using the information contained in them and cite the information to the source you got it from like

(Bob was born in Boston Mass in 1964 and attended Our Lady School [1]. He stared in his first movie, Some Movie, in 1994. In an interview he said growing up on the South Side of Boston contributed to his ability to identify with his character [2] Later he married and had three children and did not star in another film until Some Other Movie in 2007 when Joe Director said "Bob's portrayal of iconic roles in the 1990's as a Boston gangster made him the obvious choice for this film [3] References: [1]"A history of Bob" in Movie Times of USA 3 Aug 1998 page 23. [2] Doe, John A history of Boston Film 1999 p.133-134 [3]Interview of Joe Director in Director's Quarterly Fall 2009 page 31

All of that is of course made up but do you see how each fact is cited to a particular source? I did not use 'ref' tags or a citation template like {{cite}} in the example but it is best to use those in an article. If you have a hard time formatting citations I can help you with that. The important thing is that you are able to show, with citations, the reliable sources where the information came from to satisfy Wikipedia's policy that all content be verifiable. As to sending copies of references to other editors, it can be done via email but, unless the sources are in English, you would need someone who could read them. Typically editors assume good faith that an offline reference supports the claim it is used for so there is no requirement to provide copies of sources, the citation simply must be good enough that the source can be located in a library. Also, please know that all sources should be from publications with a strong reputation for fact checking and accuracy i.e. not tabloids, blogs, wikis, fan sites etc. JbhTalk 14:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so so much for giving me a chance, teaching and allow me to learn, I will get to it soon as i get off work tonight. Thank you againGreekadoniz (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for help from another editor who is better at digging up sources on people than I am. Also, please take a look at this brief tutorial on how to edit talk pages it describes how to indent your posts and thread discussions to make them easier to follow. Cheers. JbhTalk 00:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to once again express my sincere thank you for your guidance almost every step in this process. Each day of your message you showed me a new thing so I can study and be a better contributor for wiki. I've learned so much from your guidance that I wold not know otherwise whre to begin in the language that is not my mother tougue. i hope that you've see my progress i've made resulted from you taking the time and help someone you dont even know before. I'm really touch.
I was able to find a couple of magazines in English about the subject, may I scan it and email to you please? if so, what email can I send it to. I looked the subject website and saw these magazine with him on the cover and i went to look for them at store for old books and magazines and found them. I've already included the reference on his page. one of the magazine is The Big Chilli Magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greekadoniz (talk • contribs) 16:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC) Greekadoniz (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few questions, please help me clarify:
1) I was able to find a couple of magazines in English about the subject (he has many in Thai), may I scan it and email to you please? if so, what email can I send it to. I looked the subject website and saw these magazine with him on the cover and i went to look for them at store for old books and magazines and found them. I've already included the reference on his page. one of the magazine is The Big Chilli Magazine and the other one is Living In Thailand Living In Thailand. I also picked up a few old magazines that feature the subject on the cover and an article about him inside. One of the magazine is called 'Gent'.
2) I've found some clips of his interview on a very famous Thai TV show on major network on youtube. In one of the clips is more like a bio and summary of his work and his rise to Thai stardom and in the description it said that Warner Music Thailand prepared it as part of press kit at his CD launch party. I know that I can not use youtube as reliable reference, but can I use what was said in the interview and included as reference? here is the clip Art Supawatt Bio
3) All of the pictures I've found of the subject online are either from magazines or from his CD. In the magazines editorial, they always stated the photographer, but if I contact the magazine or the photographer and ask for connsent they probably think im some crezy guy and hang up on me. There are some pictures that appears to be picture taken from events but since I did not take the picture and have no way of finding out who took them so I cant use it. My question is how can I make this article complete if i dont have a picture of him included? Would screen caption consider to be copyright violation? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greekadoniz (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC) Greekadoniz (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to run through the sources one by one on the AfC talk page. Offhand I see that the article is reliant on pages that can be edited by other users, which means that they cannot be used as a reliable source in any format, let alone one that could show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sharerice.com is not editable by just anyone or at least not the page with his article on it. Please check and update your information: [29]
I found article online for 'Art of love' album launch and press release including info on first 2 singles and MV. I hope this is a RS Art of Love' by Art Supawatt Album Launch & Press Release
I also found a few articles online mentioning the subject as a star here:
- Kom Chud Luek Newspaper: Art Supawatt as one of Thai Stars, where are they now?
- Press Release Thong 10 and the comeback of the star Art Supawatt
A travel interview with him promoting his 2nd album at the end: Travel Interview: Art Supawatt promotes this album with Warner Music and his mini-series on CH. 9
  • Please give me more time. I will go shop for old magazine that featured him back when he was more relevant and ill put it down as reference to prove that my research is true and not made up. Please be kind with me and my first effort. Please teach me more and guide me so I can be an asset to Wikipedia. I really want to learn. Thank you.Greekadoniz (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greekadoniz (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't matter if only a select few can edit - Share Rice is still a wiki and those cannot be used to show notability since anyone can sign up with those and anyone can create one of those. At most this site would be considered a basic database source, but in order to accomplish even that you'd have to show where Share Rice has routinely been cited as a reliable source by several reliable sources like academic texts. It's extremely difficult to assert that a wiki is a reliable source. As far as the other sources go, this might be usable if you can show that the TV series is notable and that Purdy has more than a one off, minor role. This can be difficult because it would basically require that you write an article for the TV show that would establish the show's notability. This only mentions him briefly, so that's a bit of an issue. As far as the Siam Zone source goes, I'm not familiar with that site and the website doesn't have a staff listing, so I have to assume it's unusable.
  • First, thank you for giving me a chance and listen to what I have to say.
  • Yes, that This only mentioned him briefly, but the article was about individuals in the STAR caliber, and his name was included. I remember, as a kid watching him as a leading man on many Thai TV series. One of his TV interview in particular from 20 years ago helped me to aim high, I found part of it at a youtube channel with his name on it.. here Art Supawatt Purdy bio Of course it's in Thai, but the link discuss his rise to THai Stardom (and everything I'm trying to write in his bio) and the interview im talking about is an excerpt at the beginning. Anyone at WP:THAI can tell you that everything I am telling is true.
  • How can I show that the show is Notable? I dont mind writing one or two articles for the TV Shows he was in (if with your help, and if my effort wont get deleted right away lol). It may takes some time to write, but while I want to learn how to be a good editor on wiki,I have a day job.
  • In that same youtube channel there are clips for the main tile of his TV shows, he's got top billing (his name comes first) in all of them (except one, the last one), could that establish notability for him to have top billing in all of them?
Spent 6 hours online last nite researching to prove my point to you, and didnt find much info from 20 years ago except for his last TV SHow.

05:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Greekadoniz (talk)

However all this said, I think that this needs more help from Thai fluent editors. There's certainly evidence to suggest that sourcing should be out there, based on the Dara Daily source, and it's almost certainly in Thai, which I don't speak or read. (I'm using Google translate to look over the sources.) I'm going to ask for help at WP:THAI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand now that blogs cant be used as RC, but in Thaifilm Journal Blog the blogger stated the fact that and i quote "The trailer makes use of the country-gospel song "Where We'll Never Grow Old", which is sung by Art Supawatt" that's the fact so therefore I can use this blog as RC, no? Please advise Greekadoniz (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On line 86:
2003 || 'Art Of Love' ( ref >Sanook Radio:  Listen to the Album 'Art of Love' by Art Supawatt </ref)

The reason why I used Sanook.com Radio as reference because i want to establish notability ....Sanook.com ranks at #1 Website for Thai Entertainment in Thailand, according to Truhits.net Truehits.net showing Sanook.com is currently at #1 and it also rank at #1 for number of visitors. For his album 'Art of Love' to be chosen by music director for their web- based Radio Station and still featuring it after 13 years must mean this album is in demand for their visitors. Dont you think my point is true and valid for sanook.com for be a realiable source?, please adviseGreekadoniz (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and this should've been closer earlier as such especially had I voted, there's still nothing particularly convincing for his own notability, I would've frankly always explored deletion but this suffices. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral but just looking at the article he looks notable enough to me (so --> keep). (Repeating myself I know, but:) Note that if this guy was playing cricket, see WP:NCRICKET, he would have made it in for N, which allows inclusion for one major appearance even if that appearance was a complete failure. Aoziwe (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal I suggest a new rule for AFD discussions: If the AFD discussion becomes twice as long as the article being discussed then it is an automatic no consensus .. and hence a keep .. ? Aoziwe (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do we need also to be kind to the WP:NEWBIES ? Aoziwe (talk) 12:44, 6 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Escape The Room Challenge[edit]

Escape The Room Challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient notability. This looks to me like a small business with only regional notability. I don't see what makes it more important than any other escape room business on Earth. (The article is otherwise well-written, not in a too promotional tone.) Rinaku (t · c) 18:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Escape room, which presently only has a link to this article in its See also section. This will enhance and improve the merge target article. North America1000 21:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enhance how? That article states "In 2015, there were over 2,800 escape room venues worldwide". What makes this particular one worth singling out for mention there? —Cryptic 22:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a "By country" section and include content about some escape rooms around the world that have received coverage in reliable sources. Or, just leave the suggested merge target article as it is in a start-class state and also delete this one. North America1000 22:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struck my merge !vote above and am changing it here to delete. The topic does not appear to have received enough coverage per WP:AUD to qualify for an article. North America1000 02:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete instead as the exact likely search chances are still questionable, I find nothing else to suggest this particular subject can be independently notable or why it can be kept. Delete as there's nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 20:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence that this particular business is notable... this kind of thing is becoming a very popular fad in the U.S. and we can't possibly expect to maintain a full blown page based on every small town's newspaper's insignificant coverage of it. Kharkiv07 (T) 15:05, 5 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. Non-notable, using sock account to contest deletion and create more versions. Now salted after four deletions and sock blocked. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rama Rao Jadhav[edit]

Rama Rao Jadhav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Deswal[edit]

Pradeep Deswal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Has not been elected and not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I picked up plastic wrapper from road. I became "social activist" that way. That's not notable. Please tell us how he fits WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the Keep vote is not convincing and my examinations have still shown nothing convincing for his own notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 6 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.  Sandstein  16:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PASHA Insurance[edit]

PASHA Insurance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Fails WP:ORG / WP:GNG Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you possibly explain why my article should be deleted, please. I am ready to fix it or update it. Or if such topic is not applicable, please explain why. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marketingislove (talk • contribs) 12:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marketingislove: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should therefore only include information about notable persons, events, organizations, etc. There are certain guidelines - WP:GNG - on when a subject can be considered notable and some of these guidelines - WP:ORG - specifically apply to companies like PASHA Insurance. Furthermore, Wikipedia wishes to avoid becoming an advertising platform for commercial companies as per WP:ADVERT. Arun Kumar Singh nominated your article for deletion because it currently completely fails to convey why PASHA Insurance should be considered a notable company. This does not mean that PASHA Insurance is not a notable company - the article simply doesn't offer any evidence on whether the company is notable or not. For example, PASHA Insurance would be notable if it were exceptionally large (in terms of revenues or employees), had market power in its industry, was recognized as particularly innovative (e.g. as evidenced by industry awards), were active in many countries, etc. I hope this helps. --Arbraxan (talk) 06:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As of now, the article fails WP:ORG. --Arbraxan (talk) 06:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for explaining why this article fails to be in Wikipedia.
In fact, I am planning to write more about the company and show facts about its being leading company in Azerbaijani Insurance Industry. So, basically, I will be writing from neutral point of view (without any exaggeration) and put references. I am thinking of writing more than 400 words about different topics. In addition, I will ask my friends who are active on Social Media to do research and edit/update this article in order to avoid any bias content. Do you think if i do so, i ll be able to succeed in this article?
Thank you for your help
The the four tilde ~~~~ to sign your comments. Providing reliable references that the article's topic is notable will prevent its deletion.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The company was the lead insurance company for the country in 2015 abc. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then Redirect if neeeded as I'm still not finding anything actually convincing and the "lead company" would still be thin at best. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 6 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 by Ponyo (G5). (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 14:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Khan[edit]

Sai Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Fails WP:SOLDIER. Recipient of the 7th highest honor (Tamgha-i-Khidmat). As per WP:SOLDIER, only one time recipient of highest award or multiple time recipient of second-highest award are notable (in terms of awards). He has not held any high rank, nor played an important role in a significant military event or commanded a substantial body of troops in combat. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SOLDIER, that's not good enough to merit an article. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 15:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:55, 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 as a week has shown no Delete votes and there have also been no objections since the recent noticeable improvements (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kinetic degradation fluxion media[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kinetic degradation fluxion media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been subject to very significant changes during its life . In its current form it describes a type of water filter that removes chlorine and some other constituents. There are very many such filters on the market and the issue here is, is this particular filter notable? The references provided include two (refs 6 and 7) which actually refers to a totally different filter made by a company called Amafilter and which is used for making filter-cake from grossly contaminated process waters, such as in the coal industry. This shares the same acronym but is a totally different product. The other references include very lightweight books. One reference is in a chapter called "Nine ecofabulous ways to save water at home" and no evidence of any effectiveness is given. Lengthy debate on the article talk page has failed to flush out any substantive references to support notability and currently it fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   10:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Previous AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KDF-55 (article has subsequently been rewritten). Discussion after AfD/rewrite is Talk:Kinetic degradation fluxion media Widefox; talk 12:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge Keep (to say Water filter due to permastub) Lots of shallow sources doesn't make a quality article. Seems destined to be a WP:Permastub. This seems a balance between WP:NPRODUCT (where it may be borderline or failing per Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product.. especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion. If a non-notable product or service has its own article, be bold and merge it into an article with a broader scope (for example, an article about the type of product) or follow one of the deletion processes. and Permastub. Considering this started as a product advert (see WP:SPAM), there's just not enough in-depth sources to write a balanced article with the vast majority of sources being ads/promo. For products with health implications (drinking water) we should be thinking of WP:MEDRS for efficacy. It's brass. It's a water filter. We have those article already. This doesn't have such depth of sources, but may be worth a line in another article for example if there's a source detailing other such products. Widefox; talk 12:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: With 8 reliable sources including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and coverage in several scientific texts, the assertion that this article fails WP:GNG seems absurd. The topic has clearly received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The subject's coverage in McGraw-Hill's "Materials Handbook: An encyclopedia for Managers, Technical Professionals, Purchasing and Production Managers, Technicians and Supervisors" alone should have prevented this AFD. Toddst1 (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which doesn't address the depth of coverage / permastub issue (and per nom "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail" WP:GNG). Passing mentions can be discounted for notability, rubbish sources too (per above), and two sources for the wrong product. "8 RS" just isn't true, and is the wrong metric for a permastub. This is way off the mark for the threshold required for drinking water claims i.e. regarding MEDRS, which also is unaddressed. We should be cautious about repeating such claims as properly sourced. Fundamentally, as currently written, it's a WP:COATRACK - seemingly a novel material, to hang a product article on. From what I can make out (it's not a good article), that's brass, and a water filter. Widefox; talk 14:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-RS. I question ref 4. (R. A. S. Hemat (2004). Principles of Orthomolecularism. Urotext. ) as a RS for the claims here - see orthomolecular medicine. Widefox; talk 16:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the source and found another highly reliable source to replace it in supporting one statement, and removed the other statement entirely. No more unreliable source. Toddst1 (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except that's not true, as "6. and 7." above are for a different product, and the type of sources aren't reliable for some types of claims - MEDRS type argument etc not addressed above. Widefox; talk 17:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that section. This version seems to be [30] agreeable, and it's a permastub. Widefox; talk 18:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Toddst1 (see my comment below for analysis of sources - there are not 8 RS as some are demonstrably not-RS for the claims they made). There is not one single source at WP:MEDRS level, are you happy with the lack of proper RS and leaving claims with non-RS sources for those claims with the health implications? Widefox; talk 12:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The post-cleanup revision looks acceptable. The secondary sources "Water efficiency in buildings" and the "Materials handbook" adequately demonstrate notability. I am not concerned about whether the article is a perma-stub: it should be as long as reliable sources allow, and no longer. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Water efficiency in buildings" and the "Materials handbook" are passing mentions. GNG says "in detail". Which two or more sources are "in detail"? It is your opinion that those passing mentions satisfy GNG? NPRODUCT hints at avoiding permastubs. Widefox; talk 01:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not passing mentions. They are the subject of an entire paragraph in "Water efficiency in buildings". I have not been able to check the other source. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Materials handbook" does not have a section devoted to it, according to its TOC [31], but has one on "ACTIVATED CHARCOAL" where KDF has a couple of sentences. How can GNG be satisfied? Also per GNG "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is an advert for a brass filter product. Real RS talking about the science are things like [32] which talk of "Brass Dezincification and Other Corrosion" where zinc is released into the water. Do we know if this is DZR-brass? We don't know. The science says it is brass that gets corroded, but we can't really say that as we have no source specifically for this KDF material (which is just brass) as it may be WP:SYN. The talk page details expert opinion on these issues with the vast majority of sources of this product being non-RS, allegedly bogus snake oil. As we cannot write a balanced non-stub to counter the non-independent claims there isn't the verification in those sources for the claims, or countering them. WP:NOT. Seems fine as a mention in another article per GNG If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article We just don't have enough depth of sources to say if this is any different from all the other brass filters, so can't say if the primary claims are OK or not, or the claims of this whole article is an almost a COATRACK / WP:POVFORK of water filter and brass. As a product we just don't have the depth of sources to say much and have to fall back on couple of sentence mentions. Widefox; talk 03:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it is the same as something else, then the solution would be to propose to merge the content to a different article. I don't think the existence of brass water filtration systems should count as a point against the existence of the content of this article. If and when an article brass water filter actually exists, then we can discuss merger of those two articles. But I don't see deletion of an article about a notable concept to be helpful, until there is a suitable merge target. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(see my !vote, a merge to water filter is fine). Just to reiterate - we have a product that claims to remove chlorine from water by releasing zinc chloride into the water ("Homes that heal" source). That source claims zinc chloride is "harmless for humans". We just don't have real RS to say any of this, but two scientists here are shouting this glaring lack of RS. As I said, this is borderline GNG but we cannot repeat such claims without WP:MEDRS type sources where there are none here. In case I'm not being clear, "Homes that heal" is not an RS for this claim (for context see zinc chloride#Safety and the aqueous aspects - yes this is all WP:OR as we don't have RS). Widefox; talk 11:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a MEDRS secondary source: M.J.O’Donnell; M.Boyle; J.Swan; R.J.Russell; D.C.Coleman (2009), "A centralised, automated dental hospital water quality and biofilm management system using neutral Ecasol maintains dental unit waterline output at better than potable quality: A 2-year longitudinal study", Journal of Dentistry, 37: 748–762, doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2009.06.001. Here is the relevant quotation: "The carbon medium was supplemented with 15% (v/v) Kinetic Degrada-tion Fluxion (KDF) KDF-85 filter medium (KDF Fluid Treatment Inc., Three Rivers, MI, USA), which is effective in controlling the build-up of bacteria, algae, fungi and scale in granular activated carbon beds as well as reducing iron and hydrogen sulphide from municipal or other water supplies. KDF filter media consist of granulated, high-purity copper and zinc alloys that are designed to inhibit microbial growth in filters, remove or reduce chlorine content, iron, heavy metals and hydrogen sulphide by a redox (approx. 500 mV) process. The final stage of pre-treatment consisted of passing the water through a KDF-55 fine filter unit. All filters were sized to permit a minimum flow rate of 3000 L of water per hour. The KDF-85 filter medium and the granular activated charcoal medium are certified to NSF International Standard 61 for water treatment plant applications. KDF-55 filter medium is certified to NSF International Standard 042 for drinking water treatment units." However, I am not convinced that every source needs to be MEDRS. Water filtration is not just a medical issue, but also one of civil engineering, home design, etc. I will add some more sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. It was me that added in the antimicrobial properties of copper to the article to get some facts in there. Nobody is disputing that. Still, see MEDRS for "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content" (emphasis MEDRS) - that is a primary source! The point is to use a review paper - so a secondary. Agree with you about the article doesn't need to be using MEDRS sources unless and until there's "biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources" ... "medical content in any Wikipedia article" (emphasis MEDRS). Widefox; talk 12:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a secondary source on KDF. It is a primary source on the subject of research, which was an entirely different product. A primary source would be the original patent, marketing materials, or original research published on the KDF system. A secondary source presents a view of the subject that is one step removed from the primary source, often containing an analytic or evaluative claim. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See MEDRS A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic,. It's presumably an independent source from KDF, and a secondary about KDF yes. Agree it's a primary source on the medical aspects of KDF ie it's own research, which is the medical claim. It's not a review paper is it, per MEDRS?! Widefox; talk 13:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per that guideline: "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials." We aren't citing it for "unreliable or preliminary information" like "in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials". We are citing it as a secondary source, not a primary source. Even per the standard set by WP:MEDRS, which I'm not really convinced is warranted anyway. If it is warranted, please be specific about what medical claim you would like to see a secondary source for. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You agree it's not a review article, so literally not a secondary per MEDRS, right? It's that simple. A primary or secondary isn't defined by incorrect usage, but explicitly defined, quoted verbatim. Do you agree?
Have to say, well done expanding and finding RS. That looks like a solid RS for notability. Agree with you - this is only for any material about water with connotations for humans (MEDRS defined here "WP:Biomedical information") but the Daniel Fourness source isn't an RS - it's a masters thesis - a primary not an RS unless proved otherwise per WP:SCHOLARSHIP only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence (so 1. doesn't help for notability, and 2. help for this article and should be removed 3. is used along with another source for the same sentence so to prevent WP:SYN suggest you remove it), "Homes That Heal" is clearly not a RS for it's own topic "Harming Your Family's Health." i.e. medical claims and so per the nom could/should be completely removed here as a non-RS. Widefox; talk 15:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MEDRS does not say that a source is a secondary source if and only if it is a review article. Many articles, both inside and outside medicine, summarize other sources as well as conduct original research. These are primary sources on the topic of the research, but can be secondary sources as well. It depends on how the source is used. And, as I've already said, I don't think MEDRS is the correct standard anyway, since we aren't substantiating medical claims. But, even if it were, I think we've met that criterion. I think the masters thesis is ok because it is publicly accessible, and corroborates the mechanism of action as discussed in other published, peer reviewed sources. There is no SYN because the same information appears in both sources. I disagree the it does not contribute to the notability. More independent sources contribute to notability, regardless of whether we accept them as factually reliable and vetted by the scholarly community. In any cade, all of these issues seem increasingly peripheral to the question of deleting this article. It is quite clear that there is in-depth treatment in multiple independent reliable sources, so GNG is amply satified. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A secondary MEDRS source is not what you think it is. "A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources" (been over this). If you don't agree with that verbatim that's up to you, but that's MEDRS. Saying that, I agree it's only for biomedical material which (currently) most/all of this isn't biomedical, the topic concerns treating water for humans, and health (of water) is, so broadly construed it is, and at least one source used here (and the primary sources) make such claims. keep that in mind. The Masters thesis is by definition not an RS, so I've removed it per above. Widefox; talk 19:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of water treatment is one of civil engineering as well. There are not just medical aspects to it, so demanding that all sources must be MEDRS is an unreasonable standard in light of WP:NPOV. Specific health claims are indeed governed by that guideline, however the article makws no health claims whatsoever, merely that the filtration system neutralizes some biological activity, and that it also removes some chemicals fron the water. Neither of these facts are medical, and neither is even all that controversial. As far as I can tell, you're only insisting on ridiculous standards of sourcing for its own sake, not because you actually wish to challenge any specific statement in the article. That is already a misguided and problematic attitude for a Wikipedia editor to hold. But, in any case, some of the sources clearly do meet MEDRS. They are secondary sources that summarize available information, based on other sources, rather than primary sources that describe the original experiments. For example, the above source cites the NSF certification. You could argue that the NSF certification is a primary source, but any peer reviewed article discussion the details of that NSF certification is, by definition, a secondary source. This is obvious, isn't it? It might also be a primary source in other respects. Context matters, and in this case the sources are being used properly as secondary sources. You can find out more about primary and secondary sources at WP:PSTS and the links given there, if you still are confused. Also, above you stated that there is only one MEDRS source. I count three of them: two published in Dentistry journals, and one a literature review (!) regarding copper leaching. So, I find this continued argumentation to be very puzzling, when the sources obviously meet all requirements that we normally impose on sources, even under the most restrictive applicable guidelines. Please, WP:REICHSTAG already. I am quitting this discussion now, and trust that the closing admin has a brain and is able to determine which arguments actually have merit (although I admit to assessing the actual likelihood charitably around 75%). Have a nice day, Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Long answer didn't answer the pertinent question - the quoted definition of secondary in MEDRS. If one doesn't agree with MEDRS definition, one cannot build any argument quoting "MEDRS" can one? We do agree there's medical aspects, and that the current content doesn't have such explicit claims. It's a straw man argument to say anyone is asking for MEDRS for all sources. This filter is used for human drinking water? Yes? At my first edit article had "These by-products remain within the drinking water, but are not dangerous" [33]. That needed MEDRS yes? There's no dispute that specific content has gone now so we're in agreement it's irrelevant now... but the scope of the topic - as shown in sources used in the article, and the vast and numerous consumer marketing claims etc - focus on the health/safety of drinking water/human shower water e.g. "Healthy water for our body" [34], and we both agree those claims aren't (at this moment) in the article. Coming back to the nomination, there's no claims in the article now as there's no RS for those claims. (and ignoring ad hominem, any closing admin can verify MEDRS, and see above that nobody is claiming all sources need to be MEDRS. If we must include a Masters thesis to make this look well sourced, then job done, but it doesn't count as an RS - the links above are all that's needed to verify that's not correct). I do agree with you that as secondaries for civil engineering this has at least one RS. The nom is about why emphasis on this product, when there's others etc. Widefox; talk 01:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the three sources I referred to above meet the exact letter of MEDRS. Period. So, even if we were citing them for medical claims (we aren't), they meet even that very strong standard. Discussion over. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just seen the "Robina Ang" source - looks good, so that must be at least 2 RS by now so passes GNG. Well done. It is a content issue to address the WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT using a good source like that, which is MEDRS standard (as per def at MEDRS). (!vote changed) Widefox; talk 01:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Velella please can you review the situation, I closed my AfD early last time and considering the lack of eyeballs last time and so far now, it's up to you if you think the AfD would benefit to run its normal course, thus giving a chance for some experienced editors for further opinions. Widefox; talk 12:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I am hapy to review but it would be very helpful if somebody could provide verbatim extracts of the references that are sitting behind paywalls. I am retired and no long have access to academic libraries. I will also set out the issues I have with article on the article talk page rather than further clutter this discussion. The closing admin is already facing a nightmare working through all of this. It would, as already noted above, be very useful to have input from chemical experts. Doc James is one that comes to mind and User:EvMsmile and/or User:Materialscientist might be able to help or know of others who can. I will try and think of others. I will then return here with my considered view. Thanks for your patience.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article has medical (dental) related material and research citations now, so I've tagged as medicine project, and the awareness of the MEDRS standard above is now of practical concern. This was always the standard needed for this topic for how this product is sometimes marketed e.g. drinking water. IMHO Doc James and the others would be helpful. Widefox; talk 22:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but some level of rewrite might be needed. I've never heard of these things, but some degree of the effect is well known and they seem to be widely used in other countries. So we have to avoid being a one product article with excessive promotion, but I think that the underlying concept is notable and belongs here. I can't see that the title makes much sense though; this is either an obscure single product name, or confusing and largely irrelevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Economic repression in the Soviet Union[edit]

Economic repression in the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article consists of two sentences. The first sentence fails to properly define the subject, instead giving a poor explanation of its causes. The second sentence informs the reader that in some "early periods of Soviet history" (when?) "undesirable classes" (who? only kulaks?) "were repressed by economic means" (how precisely? what rate of taxation on what tax base was applied to which groups?). The article doesn't meet the encyclopedia's standards in terms of style, relevance, breadth and extent of content, sourcing, etc. I strongly suggest to delete it. Arbraxan (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; and much of the intended content is already included at kulak. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 11:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is pretending to be a wide-ranging article, which it is not. There was an older version that tried to link in a later period, but tying together unrelated events produces an essay not a WP article. This is essentially hopeless. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Graham (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is not a term used in the literature either of mainstream economic history or of Marxism. There are probably instances of economic repression in Soviet Russia and the USSR which might be explored at article length under a precise topic heading, such as, for example, the differential rationing used against the byvshie liudi ("former people" — the bourgeoisie) under War Communism. This would be part of an article on rationing during a specific time interval, which has a literature to be mined. Or, as noted above, the tax and physical seizures used against prominent peasants during the collectivization campaign, which touches upon work already up on the Ural-Siberian Method, for example (which I need to remember to get busy and finish, dammit...). A generalized treatment under the topic head we have here, at least at this point, would be overreach verging on Original Research. TNT. Carrite (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and Carrite.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:33, 5 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.  Sandstein  16:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelos Mantoulidis[edit]

Evangelos Mantoulidis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The person has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The sources are from the education institution he established and from a book store (where he isn't mentioned). C messier (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; I agree with your assessment. Would an article on the school Mantoulidis created have better chances to survive the notability test? Maybe some of the article's content could be salvaged to write an article on the school (if it is notable). --Arbraxan (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A worthy teacher, but sources of notability are not there. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Inadequately sourced. The proper criterion for this seems to be WP:GNG rather than WP:PROF but the reliable in-depth sourcing needed to pass GNG is not present. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as examining this still found nothing at all for his own convincing notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment much of this subject's work would be pre any significant WWW/online so I am curious as to how concerns about sources not being there have been checked, or are such just relying only on the current article's state ? Aoziwe (talk) 12:54, 6 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 withdrawn by nominator.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daredevil (Marvel Comics series)[edit]

Daredevil (Marvel Comics series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:DELETE reason #5, from Daredevil (Marvel Comics). Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 09:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I agree that there is some redundancy remaining from the Daredevil (Marvel Comics) article, but I also believe that these are two valid topics on their own and meet the notability guidelines. I will try to find some time today or tomorrow to rectify this. BOZ (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the issue of Daredevil titles not named Daredevil, e.g. The Man without Fear, or even anything with a subtitle or prefix. The fork could not include those, yet they are part of the publication history and would be misleadingly excluded from the fork article. The original isn't too long, so it should stay unified. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 11:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well then you're not talking about deletion, but rather merging, since some of the content has already been removed from the primary article into the secondary article and that would be lost on deletion. I disagree on that as well, for the record. BOZ (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Werbe[edit]

Richard Werbe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Best known for co-founding a non notable company (the article on Studypool was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Studypool DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; imho, the article fails WP:ANYBIO. There is no reason to believe that Studypool already is a "widely recognized contribution" in the field of online education. --Arbraxan (talk) 10:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks like another attempt to get his company named on Wikipedia. Sources are blogs or blog-a-like. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   22:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Strong sources including 3 pieces from TechCrunch ( major tech media ), big name silicon valley venture capitalists and news outlets like Huffington post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason4life110 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the company isn't notable, it certainly doesn't make him notable. Smartyllama (talk) 20:32, 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. North America1000 01:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orn Chanpolin[edit]

Orn Chanpolin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD by IP on the grounds that he is a professional footballer. However, this is not valid grounds for notability, the original concerns still stand: player fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 08:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:11, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LK (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kodak Black[edit]

Kodak Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No claim made about notability. Only two RS I can find are: article in NYT, mainly about his run ins with the law, and being discussed as one of a number of young teenage musicians in a New Yorker article. LK (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • SPEEDY KEEP -- per WP:SKCRIT and WP:BEFORE
    • WP:SKCRIT item (3) states Speedy Keep applies if: "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question."
    • Reading an article -- any article -- before nominating it for deletion also requires (see next bullet) reviewing the article's attached WP:Talk Page which may contain content under editorial discussion but not yet implemented into the article.
    • WP:BEFORE item (B)(4) states "Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to: [...] Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with."
    • In this case there is a section of the talk page that specifically deals the "not notable" assertion, a section which the nominator obviously did not read. This section provides a number of highly reliable sources (The New Yorker magazine, XXL magazine, SPIN magazine, The New York Times, MTV, and Forbes magazine) having feature articles written about Mr. Black and his career as a rap artist. See Talk:Kodak Black#Kodak Black -- notability sources.
Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 13:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally the nominator apparently either did not read the source articles he does reference or else is deliberately misrepresenting them in this AfD (In the interest of WP:AGF I will presume the former.). For the NYT article he states it is "mainly about his run ins with the law" but reading the article only the first two parargaphs talk about that, the remaining eight paragraphs talk about his music and his career. The nominator's description of the New Yorker article is disingenuous where he says the article lumps Black in as "one of a number of young teenage musicians" whereas the magazine article describes a specific set of eight teens who are "shaping the future of pop" and states that "they have reshaped their respective musical realms". Not notable my lilly white butt! Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 14:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - He was featured in The New York Times [35] and The New Yorker [36], which is pretty good for a guy from Florida. Two reliable sources, and many reliable rap magazines. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:07, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where Did They Film That Italy[edit]

Where Did They Film That Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Described in the article as "a cinematic travel based brand extended to multimedia platform", this is essentially a travel book published one month ago and the CD which accompanies it, released 5 days ago. The book and CD are the first and only exponents of this "brand". The book comprehensively fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). The sole coverage is press releases or press-release based. Ditto the CD. The article is basically an advertorial. The author/singer's article, Romina Arena, is also problematic with claims to notability which may or may not be true—referenced almost exclusively to primary sources, local press puff-pieces, and press releases. Voceditenore (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not finding much out there, to be honest. So far all I'm finding are press releases, sales pages, primary sources, and a review in a book review site that openly offers marketing packages to authors. (NTTAWWT necessarily, but it makes it an unusable source for Wikipedia's purposes.) I'll try hitting up my school databases, but offhand this looks pretty non-notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Romina_Arena#Author_of_books. I can find nothing to show that this book is notable, which is somewhat surprising given that Arena seems to be relatively well known, as you'd think that there would be some sort of news coverage if a musician wrote a travel/movie book. However there isn't and the book is non-notable at this point in time. Normally I'd suggest a redirect to the author's page in the hopes that the book might gain coverage in the future, but this article has issues with promotion and copyright. It'd need a pretty substantial re-write to fully remove all of the promotional language and any remaining copyright violations. Given that they'd still be in the article's history, I'd prefer that a neutral version be written from scratch, hence the delete and redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At first I too found it puzzling that there wasn't any independent coverage of this book/CD given the notability for Arena claimed in her article, but on closer investigation of that article, most of it is manufactured and exaggerated and has no real third-party sources to support it. The coverage of her consists of identical articles about utterly non-notable Italian "awards", and a series of press release-based articles and interviews from 2012 which coincided with the publicity push for the album Morricone Uncovered in which she covered a series of film songs by Morricone. Every one of the articles repeats the same press release with the claims that (among other things) Ennio Morricone is her mentor. I've yet to see a single article in which Morricone himself has said that or any evidence of any collaboration between them after that album. The collaboration itself is very tenuous. According to one of the articles cited, it was actually his son who helped her arrange the songs, not Morricone himself. Morricone Uncovered has not received mainstream independent coverage in Italy, let alone the US. It's not surprising that this one hasn't either, although this Wikipedia article is obviously meant as a means to to achieve that. Voceditenore (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about AfD, Tokyogirl. Her recordings may satisfy WP:MUSICBIO, but it definitely needs a massive clean-up to tone down the claims and remove the multiplicity of press-release based "references". After that is done, it may be more easy to make an assessment. Voceditenore (talk) 11:25, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Week in Almeria[edit]

Holy Week in Almeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no evidence to suggest the notability of this topic. What appears to be a machine translation of the Spanish text is available at Draft:Holy Week in Almeria. The article on the city in question, Almeria, does not have any information on religion in the city. I could not find any sources that explain how Easter celebrations in this city are independently notable in any particular way. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if the Holy Week in Almería doesn't present any differences from that of other places of Spain,it is always useful for the people coming to this Spanish city to know that this traditional celebration also takes place in this city. Therefore, this article explains in which way this celebration is done and what activities (more precisely "procesión" in Spanish) take place during the days of the Holy Week (from Saturday to Sunday).
As the creator of this article and inhabitant of Almería, I believe it would be interesting for non-residents to know the tradition of the Holy Week in this city of Andalusia .
(If this comment shouldn't be written here let me know) Danielph147 (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment Danielph147, it is certainly appropriate for you to comment in this discussion. I have slightly changed the format of your comment by adding the word "Keep" instead of the section header "against deletion".
The problem with your comments so far is that Wikipedia has a policy that it is not a travel guide. So whilst the history of this event may be interesting, it also needs to satisfy the requirement that it be notable. So you need to provide evidence of the celebration being discussed in reliable sources. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although a description of the celebrations could be notable, the current article is merely a list of participating "brotherhoods", that are unlikely to meet WP:GNG. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:17, 27 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, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't show how the Holy Week in Almeria has any lasting, historical effect, a significant impact on the region, or has received in-depth coverage by national and international media beyond the short-term news cycle. It rather seems like the coverage of a routine (annual) event. Moreover, the declaration of being a "Fiesta of National Tourist Interest of Andalusia" seems to be factually inaccurate. The festival falls under the declaration "Semana Santa in Andaluca" (Source), like any other Andalusian festival associated with the Holy Week. It fails WP:LASTING, WP:EFFECT, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DEPTH, WP:INDEPTH, WP:DIVERSE, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:PERSISTENCE, and falls under WP:ROUTINE. Please delete. --Arbraxan (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I'm still not finding anything else better at all, there's certainly also nothing currently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 14:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hank & John[edit]

Dear Hank & John (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:WEB, as content do not inherit notability from related people. Emphrase 19:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the podcast is notable in its own right and I believe is at least as notable as Hello Internet and several other podcasts hosted by online celebrities which have their own pages. --Philip Stevens (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. iTunes chart performance is also a notability factor. Radagast (talk) 19:56, 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 02:07, 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 04:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Machine translation in Brazil[edit]

Machine translation in Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable original synthesis. fgnievinski (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article does not meet our notability guideline. Also note that the editor seems a WP:SPA. DeVerm (talk) 06:28, 4 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FutureMarketer[edit]

FutureMarketer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been speedy deleted once, but recreated again, so I am sending this to AfD. The subject is a Singapore based company founded in 2015. I see no credible claim of significance. Neither do I see any evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH as none of the references available cover the company in detail. In fact, some of them only quote certain people associated with the company. I also think this is WP:TOOSOON. Not to mention that the article is hopelessly promotional as well. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm seeing 2 credible claims of significance, the partnership with the school, and being featured in Forbes. Adam9007 (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I myself speedied this and I still confirm it since none of this applies for any convincing notability, a newly started company still gaining momentum thus not yet notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficiently sourced corporate puff. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. No adequate notability. The efs are essentiall promotional. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a one year old marketing company trying to market itself on Wikipedia. As for the claim by Adam9007 that the company was "featured in Forbes", that is incorrect. One of their employees got briefly quoted in Forbes, and the company was namechecked. That is many miles away from any sort of "feature" of the company, which would be a major article about the company. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Dcirovic (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 04:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto van Peborgh[edit]

Ernesto van Peborgh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-promotion. No firm evidence of notability . No good third party sources. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:29, 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) 05:00, 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 04:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Nickarz (politician)[edit]

David Nickarz (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a politician and activist, notable primarily as a non-winning candidate in an election. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL -- if you cannot credibly show and source that he was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of his candidacy itself, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to collect notability from the election. But nothing here demonstrates that he would have qualified for an article outside of the election campaign; the sourcing here is all WP:ROUTINE candidate and riding profiles, a primary source press release from the organization he works for, and glancing namechecks of his existence in purely local media coverage which isn't substantively about him. None of this, neither the volume and quality of the sourcing nor the substance of what it's supporting, makes him more notable than the norm for an unelected candidate. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Graham (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Does not satisfy WP:NPOL and, in the subject's capacity as an environmental activist, does not meet notability standards. Graham (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Graham (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unelected candidates are not notable at this level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as unelected politician. While I personally believe that WP would be better if such candidate biographies were allowed, consensus on notability in this situation is fairly clear. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 14:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Colombia army helicopter crash[edit]

2016 Colombia army helicopter crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's not a notable event, if we had a Wikipedia article for every helicopter crash that occurred, Wikipedia would suddenly be 100000 TB larger. As per WP:Event Kabahaly (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a very notable event with a high amount of fatalities and major news coverage. I will add to the article soon. This is one of the largest aviation incidents of 2016, I believe it is the fifth in the number of deaths.Beejsterb (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The crash had 17 fatalities and has received widespread coverage at both the national and supranational level. It is not yet clear whether the event will have lasting significance (the event happened yesterday), but, given that the President announced an investigation, important consequences can be expected. However, the article really doesn't match encyclopedia standards in terms of style. --Arbraxan (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arbraxan's argument. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 11:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's no valid deletion argument from the nom. Saying that the article adds to WP's size and using that as a reason for deletion is the stupidest thing I've ever read. Today. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Pretty standard as far as air accidents go in terms of meeting those notability guidelines. However, I will point out that this is the sort of thing that will happen when we try to be a current events reporter instead of an encyclopedia. This article should not have gone live. We have a user sandbox for a reason, and just like the news, nobody wins an award for sub-standard material. MSJapan (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article clearly meets WP:EVENT requirements since its been widely covered in the news, examples include the BBC, the Star, the Indian Express and this was just in the past 24 hours. The argument that the nominator gives is not going to fly. One minor adjustment though; the article came out too soon, but, it'll be fine in a couple days. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments; most news outlets are currently reporting the same short story about the air accident, compare the BBC [37] with the later report by Reuter (day after) [38] and Washington Post (same day as BBC) [39]. This doesn't sway my opinion, at least, not yet. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This event is sufficiently notable. --Dcirovic (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a large number of media carrying the same brief news wire story does not constitute in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources; "number of deaths" does not equate to Notability either. The second sentence of MSJapan's "keep" !vote has actually made a good case for "delete" as well. YSSYguy (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Magnitude of the crash (17 fatalities) moves it beyond the realm of "ordinary" military transport mishaps. Carrite (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 14:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda (The Sound album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Propaganda (The Sound album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think one notable review (AllMusic) and a mention in the discography section of the Trouser Press article qualifies this as being notable enough to have its own article. FamblyCat94 (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Allmusic review and the Prefix coverage identified at the last AFD mean WP:GNG is passed. This nomination is too soon after the last one. Have restored the Prefix review that the nominator removed amid edit warring.Atlantic306 (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per first AfD, sufficient coverage exists. --Michig (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per first AfD; sufficient coverage. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 11:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient coverage per first AfD; Prefix is definitely a notable source.Greg Fasolino (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:19, 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 speedy close. The last AfD, which was only a few hours ago, closed as withdrawn as it looks like proof of population was given (ie, the post office). I don't see any new evidence here to suggest that the area is unpopulated. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fouka, Egypt[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fouka, Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN per WP:GEOLAND. This is apparently unpopulated despite the claim in the article and the map - this source seems to indicate there isn't anything within 3 km of the location. Kabahaly (talk)

  • Speedy keep - we just had this discussion and it just closed as keep. I moved because it was at Fukah and there were even less sources. Also, you more or less said the exact same thing I said in my nom. MSJapan (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article was renominated for deletion 4 hours after the previous AfD closed as keep. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Looks like a WP:DISRUPT nomination. Nom cut and pasted the quickly discredited rationale from the previous AfD that was both withdrawn and closed as kept 4 hours ago. --Oakshade (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per the points made above. It would be awesome to have some kind of bot or automated system that identified immediate renominations like this. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as there was very recently a discussion that was closed as keep. I suggest a temporary ban on nominating this page be added. Notability is not temporary and this is notable. It's a copy/paste of the last nom and the word "this source" isn't even linked. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 14:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jabee[edit]

Jabee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, which is based almost entirely on coverage from his own hometown media -- the only non-local sources here are blurbs, which completely fail to be substantive. As always, a musician is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- he must be credibly sourced as passing one or more specific criteria in NMUSIC, but nothing here fulfills that. Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO #1. In addition to having received significant coverage in Oklahoma news sources, the subject has also received significant coverage in The News & Observer, based in Raleigh, North Carolina. Also of note is that Wikipedia:Too soon is an opinion essay, not a guideline or policy. The article would benefit from copy editing to remove overly intricate detail that may not appeal to a diverse and broad variety of readers. North America1000 05:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Keep. It looks there is significant coverage in secondary sources, which substantiates his notability. The article definitely needs work, but I don't think deletion is appropriate. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Imo, the article meets the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. --Arbraxan (talk) 10:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JIYU Gaming[edit]

JIYU Gaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable gaming team Grahame (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - reads like a vanity page for a new group some friends just decided to get together to make, and google backs up this lack of notability. Fieari (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Fieari. --Arbraxan (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Unreferenced. No claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete G7. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Fred's 250[edit]

2015 Fred's 250 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Accidentally made TheTrueMarcster (talk) 01:33, 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 userfied per request. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 17:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dog in Burley[edit]

Dog in Burley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Totally unencyclopedic article about a specificmethod of carrying dogs. No sources, not notable. Also, WP:NOTMANUAL Fyddlestix (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fyddlestix beat me to creating the AfD. Delete - This is not an encyclopedia article. It is a how-to and had no place in the encyclopedia. I can not find any reliable sources that discuss talking your dog for a ride in a trailer behind a bicycle. -- GB fan 01:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Under WP:A7 if not WP:SNOW. This is not an encyclopedia article. It's not even a how-to, more of an image board thing, to collect cute pictures. Fieari (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not an eligible subject for deletion under WP:A7. -- GB fan 01:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm. You may be right. I think I misread what the article was trying to be... it does self-assert notability after all. Ugh. I still think WP:SNOW is going to apply here. Fieari (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the other commenters. The article is unsourced and probably cannot be properly sourced. No sources have been found. It may not be advertising, but if not, it is very close to it. It is indeed more of an image board thing, totally unencyclopedic. Also, a minor point perhaps, it is not written in encyclopedic style or language. I was considering tagging it for speedy deletion on Huggle but I hesitated because no criterion seemed to fit exactly, I checked the page and saw the entry here so I add my comment. Donner60 (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would have thought it meets speedy delete criteria, but apparently not on a strict interpretation. It is clearly not encyclopaedic, un-verifiable and non-notable. There is already an article Burley Design about the company referred to here so if there was anything that could be verified from this article it should go there, not in a separate article. Melcous (talk)
  • Delete. It's true that dog's can be carried in bicycle trailers, but any discussion of their utility as transportation devices for pets should be discussed at that article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Written like an advert, likely COI. Also, WP:SNOW. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 11:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Delete Not to be seen as a bully (per the talk page), but this is clearly what Wikipedia is NOT for. The author of this page stated that this was designed to be more of a social media type page, and to give Wikipedia "Youtube based exposure". RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an encyclopedia, not a blog for pictures of dogs in bike trailers. This seems to qualify as SNOW. RA0808 talkcontribs 18:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Not an encyclopedic article. Most of the images have been removed from Commons as copyviol. Mojoworker (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is Incubate a valid !vote? While it's a mess as is, it's possible this could be developed into an article that meets GNG, as the editor learns Wikipedia policies. I hate to do something so dishearteningly BITEY as outright deletion to an enthusiastic new editor... Mojoworker (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archimedes Gallery[edit]

Archimedes Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable gallery lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete (A7). No credible claim for notability, no sources. --Randykitty (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I am surprised the speedy deletion was declined, as nothing in the article text does more than assert it exists, with an uncited name-list of exhibitors. My own searches are finding nothing (even, for example, any exhibition reviews in noted journals, though AfD discussions on galleries then tend to encounter WP:NOTINHERITED problems) that could indicate encyclopaedic notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nomination. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nomination, article fails to identify notability, and a search on google news on returned one good hit which was insufficient to establish the missing notability. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:54, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Bagley[edit]

Audrey Bagley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable artist lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: A Highbeam search returns nothing and Google returns the usual social media and primary sources. No evidence of WP:CREATIVE or broader biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent sources indicate notability under any criteria. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Independent sources updated do indicate notability - see criteria listed. Edited- Irrelevant information removed from page. evidence of WP:CREATIVE or broader biographical notability is provided. Under section 3 of WP:CREATIVE The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.Wikilady03 (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response by request. For Wikilady03 (talk), You messaged me on my talk page with a request to reconsider my DELETE recommendation based on your argument above. There is no question the subject has worked on notable projects, verified by credit lists, such as IMDB, that are independent of her self-promotion (i.e. Sealoch Studio) The problem is the role the subject has played does not meet WP:CREATIVE definition of having "created or played a major role in co-creating...” For example regarding the Pixar films, her name does not appear in the credits among the creators, key personnel or supervisors. Instead it is included among hundreds of names listed in either the special effects or animation departments, a dozen or more who perform her same function. Are we to suggest everyone who worked on these films merits a wikipedia entry? Regarding the music videos her contributions, per her own website, appear of a similar nature in that they are performed under someone else’s overall direction. And for what it’s worth it appears none of these videos are particularly notable. Sealoch Studio is the subject’s own business so it’s mention in the article is both non-independent and promotional. ShelbyMarion (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response by request. For ShelbyMarion (talk) I understand your points, but the subject is listed in books as a particular Artist of Main Characters with information listed. You include accusations of non-independant and promotional off little research by yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilady03 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response. For Wikilady03 (talk), Looking at your user history I see you have been an editor on wikipedia for all of one week, primarily to promote the interests of Audrey Bagley by creating pages for her, a gallery that sales/or includes her works, and a magazine that has printed at least one of her works. The longer you engage yourself with the AfD section of wikipedia you will come to find that my “little research” is a whole heck of a lot more than many AfD editors who will simply google the name “Audrey Bagley” and find there is not much evidence of notability. On the other hand, I—along with many of the more engaged editors—will actively click links and check the provided references in an effort to validate a subjects notability. Which is why I perused every link of the Sealoch website, and scoured every listing of film credits to locate her name within the hierarchy of credits. In this search to validate the subject’s notability, I have actually done much more research (and have been willing to peel back many more layers) to try to KEEP rather than DELETE this page. I suppose the accusation of “little research” (which offends me, BTW, considering the amount of extra effort I put into this) is because I didn’t address the reference to the subject being identified on page 175 of The Art of Toy Story 3? Fair enough. I’m unwilling to either purchase or hunt down a copy simply to debate a different point of view on the internet. If Audrey Bagley is the subject of the book or of a lengthy chapter within that is significant to the book’s existence, then perhaps it could be cited as a reference indicative of notability. But my “little research” of this reference, which includes perusing the books’ listing on both amazon.com and GoodReads, and even reading some of the customer and professional reviews within, indicates that not to be the case. Thus, the reference is so trivial that I didn’t feel it worth addressing. By the way, a subsequent check reveals a YouTube promotional video from the publisher that satisfies my belief that the reference is trivial: thumbing through the pages it’s tough to argue the book’s mention of Audrey Bagley is significant at all. For the curious it is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIKteILoZqw. Any how, regardless of the subject’s talent and capabilities, I simply don’t think Audrey Bagley, based on the references provided, is notable enough to merit a wikipedia entry. I’ll gladly change my opinion if you can provide better references. Especially those independent of promoting the subject’s self-interests. In the mean time just be glad no one has nominated for deletion your other creations re: Chopsticks NY magazine or the Archimedes Gallery. One is a free weekly and the other a 4 year old retail/exhibit business. The Archimedes is probably too new to have the name awareness in the Pacific Northwest as of some of Cannon Beaches more established galleries such as Haystack or White Bird (neither of whom have wikipedia pages), but it seems like a cool place. But with it’s single reference being it’s own website, it might be considered self promotional unless you can source more independent references. And that WOULD NOT be locale coverage that are result of the gallery's own promotion (i.e. announcements, press releases, etc...and unfortunately most of them are.) The magazine, on the other hand, despite it’s narrow readership and small circulation (esp. for a freebee) may pass muster for mention in a stub for NYC metro periodicals, should you decide to create one. This advice is offered to help you be a productive wikipedia editor, and what to do to "save" pages of your own creation. I am a thorough researcher and am willing to go that extra mile to save articles that have merit but are poorly sourced. I'll even help find the sources. But you have to understand that sources need to be put up to scrutiny as being notable every bit as much as the nominated subject. Good luck. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the 'artist' was actually notable for their role in the films, there would be articles, media coverage and book items to show for it.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:59, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein Ajami[edit]

Hussein Ajami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a person with no coverage in reliable sources. A speedy deletion was contested. Whpq (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The thing is WP:SELFPROMOTION puffery which does not meet WP:GNG. MarnetteD|Talk 00:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Trying to assert notability by citing a list of celebrities with whom you've worked (using Facebook links, no less) is always a warning sign. He doesn't pass WP:GNG by a longshot. GABgab 00:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedy A7 in fact. Why the speedy was removed I have no idea. --Majora (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article doesn't even suggest or imply notability. Fieari (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Per A7 --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pile on delete I tried so hard to search for sources to save this BLP. The best I could find was a same named person who is the President of Dearborn Tractors, and a similarly named professor of Shiraz University who has written quite a few papers. Unfortunately, could not find acceptable sources for either. Lourdes 18:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per criterion A7. Graham (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A case of clear self promotion with failure to identify notability per CSD:A7. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:50, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn War[edit]

Dawn War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be in-universe information about something in Dungeons & Dragons. Not really fitting for Wikipedia, and instead could belong in a Wikia somewhere. Lacks real-world coverage as well. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete criteria A7. Agree that this should be a wikia article somewhere. Fieari (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete criteria A1, the article doesn't do enough to identify the subject nor is it notable enough for Wikipedia. Agree with Fieari that this should be on some wikia. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet A7, which only applies to real people, animals, organisations, web content and events (fictional conflicts do not come under any of these categories). However it does fail WP:NOT#PLOT in anything like this form and would be more suitable for a fan wiki. Hut 8.5 22:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tharizdun or delete. Not seeing it as a terribly useful redirect term, actually, and the text of the article appears entirely in-game, although also possibly copyvio. Jclemens (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete might be one of the rare reasonable cases for an IAR speedy... Hobit (talk) 02:12, 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.
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraphim_(American_Band). {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_June_28&oldid=1142621987"