Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 June	4 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Userfy. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 03:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minori Suzuki[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. She apparently won an award last year but that's about it. A number of the references are mentions or to the subject's own website. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Philafrenzy: Please check these two references (sorry if they're Japanese): [1], [2]. They're primarily about her, so if anything, at the very least she passes WP:GNG. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source ([3]) which discusses her in some detail (i.e. it verifies she passed an audition). The source is Oricon which is regarded as a reliable source when it comes to Japanese entertainment. [4] includes an interview with her and another Macross Delta singer, JUNNA. I'm sorry if most of the coverage about her is in Japanese, but you need to understand that, most coverage about Japanese subjects is in that language, and coverage in English (particularly for newcomers like Suzuki) can indeed be lacking. But our notability guidelines do not discount the use of Japanese (or any other foreign language source) in articles. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Japanese sources are fine, if they show notability. That is what this nomination will assess. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At 18 and with only one role this is going to be a very hard one to prove notability. Finding RS for the audition and role is clearly easy to do, it's a massive franchise so it will be well covered. However that brings it's own problem, does that make her notable or is it purely based on the popularity of the franchise. Are they even separate? This strikes me as too soon. However I would hope that Bandai Visual link wouldn't be used for passing GNG given they are involved in the franchise production and publication. It's in their interests to promote the lead actress. SephyTheThird (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:TOOSOON. One role according to VADB. [5] Yes, she won a contest to land the lead role, but that's just a start. Unless the Macross Delta audition process was a reality-TV contest like American Idol, this doesn't give much for notability in multiple works. If you think she is going to have a string of major roles immediately following, then suggest moving her to draft. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also want to comment whether she's already charted on Oricon because of her role in Macross Delta. That might be enough to keep her or push towards the draft option. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: Walküre's single charted on Oricon at a fairly high position. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Narutolovehinata5 per request. The Oricon was part of a band so it isn't exactly her solo career, and still counts along with the Macross Delta credit as a single impact. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In case the consensus of this discussion ends in a delete outcome, may I request that the article content be moved to either the Draft space or my userspace (preferably the latter). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Narutolovehinata5. I think the request is a valid one, I hope this one can be improved =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy My existing concerns above haven't been answered and are unlikely to be until time has passes and they get more roles or her work is assessed by reliable sources. One for the future perhaps and always best to give it to someone who is willing to work on it.SephyTheThird (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Doswell[edit]

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

Hasn't managed in the football league Telfordbuck (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played / managed senior international football nor played / managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played at professional level Spiderone 18:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, subject has yet to meet relevant guidelines for inclusion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY, and as most of the sources are just passing mentions of him, fails WP:GNG as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:55, 10 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tonya Kinzinger[edit]

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

Subject is not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep She is internationally notable-many sources, strange for an AFD here TeeVeeed (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable. Enough sources. Agree that it is strange for an AFD.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see here Victuallers (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:ENTERTAINER: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:02, 10 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shafy Bello[edit]

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

Not notable. Article is an advert designed to promote the subject's career. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, this is a joke. Nominator gives me plenty reason why I think he's a newbie. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources currently referenced in the article shows that the subject has received significant mentions in local newspaper coverage. The subject passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR. Last but not least, the subject has been nominated for a major film award in their native country. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: The subject of the article passes WP:BASIC and WP:ENTERTAINER. It shouldn't have been nominated for deletion in the first instance. Eruditescholar (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The article subject passes WP:GNG since the subject has received significant coverage across numerous reliable sources. She has well crossed the threshold of notability. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 07:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:The subject is obviously notable. She has been extensively discussed in reliable sources, some of which are even referenced in the article--Jamie Tubers (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A well written and properly referenced article such as this one deserves to remain on Wikipedia. Even if want to argue that she was only nominated for what is arguably a major film award, I see significant coverage in popular newspaper articles, so she already passes GNG.Darreg (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: adequate indicia of notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:02, 10 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. We have consensus that this company is not notable. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upstar[edit]

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

Non-notable company, lacking significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The article text acknowledges as much, noting that the company has "low brand recognition", ie. is not notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and this should've basically been deleted at the first AfD as no one contested and I am accurate with saying there's still nothing for solid independent notability, regardless of whether someone disagrees with that. This is only still a few years old (2011) and none of this in any way suggests it's solid for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Insufficient notability. Just corporate advertising. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - no notability. Tom29739 ^[talk] 19:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly unnotable. — Music1201 ^talk 03:59, 11 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 "Asking 4 It" and "Rare", redirect "Truth" to album article. Next time, can WP:BLUDGEONing be avoided? (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Truth (Gwen Stefani song)[edit]

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

Also nominated:

These articles fail WP:NSONG on the grounds that their subjects have not been been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. A footnote on NSONG adds that The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment.

These articles mostly rely on passing mentions of their subjects (the songs) in interviews, news pieces, or reviews pertaining to the parent album. This is yet another example of a trend that commonly happens within music-related articles: taking a few snippets of reviews and puffing them up into an individual song article, when the content could (and should) be better, and more concisely, used in the album article. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can see where you're going with "Truth", but "Asking 4 It" and "Rare" both have various independent publications regarding the song, that I will be listing below, not to mention are already included in the respective articles:

Asking 4 It

"Fetty Wap slated to be only guest artist on Gwen Stefani's album"
"Gwen Stefani Says Her Kids Are Excited for Fetty Wap Collab"
"Gwen Stefani – Asking 4 It (ft. Fetty Wap) Review"

Rare

"Blake Shelton Reveals His Favorite Songs Off Stefani's New Album – Find Out What It Is!"
"Blake Shelton Reveals His Favorite Song On Gwen Stefani's New Album; Is 'Rare' About Him?"
"New Gwen Stefani lyrics suggest Miranda Lambert left Blake Shelton"

Like I said, I see where you're going with "Truth", but not with "Asking 4 It" and "Rare". Carbrera (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, and 3 fail this part of NSONG: This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work. 4 does not appear to be a reliable source. (The author credited as an email address, and a Gmail one at that?) That leaves 5, which only confirms that the song indeed exists, and 6, which is not substantial enough to form the crux of an encyclopedia article. And again, NSONG requires having been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label.

I think the important question is this: if all three of these song articles were to be deleted, would the reader lose any substantial amount of information that is not already present at This Is What the Truth Feels Like, or that could not be included there? Chase (talk | contributions) 21:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm confused with the wording, what's wrong with Source #2? I agree that's an important question, and I believe that the reader would lose a substantial amount of information regarding the songs. If the information included in these articles were merged with the album page, the album article would not read awkwardly, seeming to favor the discussion of three of the album's songs–which makes no sense. "Asking 4 It" has a lot of good insight regarding the recording process that doesn't have a proper place in This Is What the Truth Feels Like; the aforementioned album is by Gwen Stefani, and not Gwen Stefani and Fetty Wap. The Asking 4 It's article inclusion of its critical reception, interview about Wap, and "gimmicky" but "ultra-personal" lyrics what be highly out of place on the parent album's page. Carbrera (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's where being selective and including only the most pertinent information in the album articles comes in. No one's suggesting that the song articles be copy/pasted verbatim into the album article. That would cause undue weight to be given to the songs, as you noted.

And the problem with the second source is that it is based on the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties (in this case, the apparent subject of the song and the artist's boyfriend) advertis[ing] or speak[ing] about the work. NSONG looks to find that reporters, critics, and scholars have found the song worthy of significant discussion without prompting from interviews or tweets by those involved. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But see that's the problem. Especially "Rare" has a good deal of information in the article that is specific to just the song and not the album. Yes, I realize that the info could be cut down and then placed on the album's article, but it wouldn't make any sense to considering the amount of information out there. Carbrera (talk) 07:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for "Asking 4 It" and "Rare" as both pages have independent publications discussing the song as an individual entity rather than as a passing mention in a larger discussion or review of the album or Stefani's career. Even though I was the one to review and pass "Truth" for GA, I agree with nominator's point that a majority of the references rely on passing mentions of their subjects (the songs) in interviews, news pieces, or reviews pertaining to the parent album. I vote Delete for the page on "Truth" and any relevant or important information should be brought over to the page on the parent album. Aoba47 (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And not that this is the deciding factor or anything, but all three of the articles you nominated recently have turned into GAs, so I'd like to keep this considered. Thanks Carbrera (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there's enough independent coverage on these, along with Carbrera noting their GA status. I understand it's WP:NSONG policy for notability but who ever expected media outlets to write articles out of the blue on (non-single) album tracks? That doesn't happen very often unless they become the subject of a performance or controversy for their lyrics, so I don't see why mentions of their content in articles about the parent album are not good enough. (Not intending to start a tangential discussion about said policy, just musing.) Ss 112 09:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it's WP:NSONG policy for notability but who ever expected media outlets to write articles out of the blue on (non-single) album tracks? They usually don't. And those songs aren't supposed to have articles. Template:R from song states: There is consensus that the majority of songs do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Songs should only have an individual article when there is enough material to warrant a detailed article. Chase (talk | contributions) 22:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I believe I stated there is enough material to warrant a separate article. You don't need to quote things I already know at me as if I don't know them. Ss 112 13:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale was I don't see why mentions of their content in articles about the parent album are not good enough. I explained to you why. Chase (talk | contributions) 15:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, something I already knew and this is a circular argument. You just repeated the policy and another after my rhetorical point was that the policy/ies isn't/aren't perfect and should be the things in dispute, not a few cherry-picked Gwen Stefani song articles. Yet here we are. Ss 112 19:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is quite the discussion you got going on here. With that being said, I can see both sides in this discussion. Let me start by saying that despite my vote on "Asking 4 it", as I passed it as a GA article, with the others will be fair. Even singles sometimes just have two-three non-album reviews and if there is any relevant information is already on the album. I'm currently in a similar discussion. All in all, Delete "Truth" keep the others. Note: After this discussion is closed I will take a second look at the sources on "Asking for it", regarding non-reliability. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also starting to think I could really expand "Truth" and dig deep for some standalone information and articles. I'll try my absolute best to make this happen. Like Ss112 noted, it is unreasonable to expect media to write an entire article based off of one song, yet there are thousands of Wikipedia GA entries based upon non-single songs. Stay tuned. Carbrera (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it is unreasonable to expect media to write an entire article based off of one song, yet there are thousands of Wikipedia GA entries based upon non-single songs. – No, it's really not. There are plenty of songs that have significant individual coverage. But the vast majority of songs are not supposed to have articles per notability guidelines. Chase (talk | contributions) 22:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I say "one song", I mean a "non-single". Carbrera (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It happens occasionally. Our notability guidelines mean that most non-singles (and many singles, for that matter) should not have articles. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do Beyoncé's songs from Lemonade still have articles and are not being nominated for deletion? Because they charted on several countries' charts? Is that the deciding factor? Is that the significant independent coverage they need? I mean, there's plenty less notable material on Wikipedia; those songs from Lemonade barely have anything else besides outdated chart links on them. Like, I'm pretty sure we're all familiar with the notability guidelines here, so it's now coming down to "there's not enough material on them" versus "yes, there is". Ss 112 13:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the Beyoncé articles in question. Please see WP:WAX; the fact that some articles haven't been deleted (or nominated for deletion) doesn't mean that these shouldn't be. (And I'm not necessarily saying that those other articles need to be deleted.) Chase (talk | contributions) 15:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you think these articles should be deleted, by your logic you certainly should be thinking a bunch of other articles need to be deleted too. There are far less notable examples than these, which in my opinion, and several others', are already notable enough. Whatever. After over four days, and it still being at just three against one, I'm thinking this isn't going to gain enough votes to reach a consensus. Ss 112 20:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you certainly should be thinking a bunch of other articles need to be deleted too. OK? I do. You can't expect me to round up every article of the sort. I've said clearly that articles like the ones nominated here should not exist.

it still being at just three against one, I'm thinking this isn't going to gain enough votes to reach a consensus. Consensus is not based on vote-counting; it's based on the quality of arguments and how they adhere to policies and guidelines, which have mostly been ignored by the keep !votes. Hopefully an administrator will take note of that and relist this relatively untouched discussion if few others comment in the next few days. Chase (talk | contributions) 05:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and consensus requires more than one opinion and one person arguing against the articles' existence by picking apart every source on them. Articles are not simply deleted because one person has a "quality" argument that they think is in line with policies and guidelines, so, sure. I certainly welcome more input, if it will even happen. Ss 112 10:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chase, I still don't understand under what qualifications this policy applies to. Over half of Madonna's latest release has articles for the tracks, and all of them are GA, despite only three international singles and one Italian single being released. So the remaining five are still articles, what's up with that? Plus I highly doubt there's an independent review on each song from multiple sources? I know you're going to quote me on this, but if the article is written well and it's a GA, what's the major problem? Carbrera (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to nominate those Madonna articles for deletion? This discussion isn't about them. And the problem is that these articles don't meet notability criteria. Period. Very few editors here have attempted to prove otherwise. You and SS112 keep referring back to WAX arguments. And being a good article does not make this exempt from deletion. In fact, since the topics aren't notable enough for standalone articles, that's a violation of the notability guideline which means it shouldn't be a good article.

To keep this AfD from going in a circle, I will not respond to any further comments about other articles. They aren't relevant to this discussion. Chase (talk | contributions) 06:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chase has a point guys, being a good article does not exempt it from being steam rolled through AFD. I just redirected a Madonna GA article, "I'm a Sinner" because it had no independent third party notability (Unlike the Rebel Heart tracks being highlighted above) and failed WP:NSONGS. Simple —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Chase definitely does have a point. However, "Asking 4 It" and "Rare" both have reliable sources, especially "Rare", which was all over a few television series (sources for this are in the article) this past March. And I have to admit, "Asking 4 It" also includes some really good information with trustworthy sources (I personally think it's one of my best works); if you must do something, take a look at "Truth", but I still don't see the problems with the other two. (On a side note, Chase, I don't understand why you put a "not in citation given" notice when it states clearly in the citation what was included.) Carbrera (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And Chase, you keep arguing that they're not notable whereas Carbrera and I are saying they are, then you tear apart all the sources listed and claim all we're doing are relying on WAX arguments. No. It's not "period", end of story just because you say so. The fact is, they are rated as good articles and I think they deserve more of a discussion than being turned into redirects (and just because "I'm a Sinner" hasn't had somebody saying anything about it yet, doesn't mean they won't). Let's leave the final say in determining their notability up to an administrator or less concerned party to determine, not anybody who's commented here yet. Ss 112 07:06, 9 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. KTC (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neten Dorji[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not appear to be the subject of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. This article was last considered for deletion in June 2005, where there was no consensus. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate evidence of such coverage, but were not successful. Please do not hesitate to contact me should significant coverage be located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bhutan-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass GNG, which requires multiple sources. I am not sure the one source here is enough about Dorji to pass GNG, but we would need another source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing at all minimally close for basic notability, certainly nothing else convincing beyond that. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ the one source does seem to indicate he is unique and notable for Bhutan. Lemme dig around for a bit and see if he has any album credits or if I can improve this article in some other manner.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could not find anything. Withdrawing my weak keep.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 02:19, 11 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. KTC (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Buenaventura[edit]

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

A fitness coach is not notable. Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be a fitness coach whose sources take his notability over the WP:GNG (e.g. having a reliable source attribute FC Barcelona's success to this fitness coach's training. The corresponding article on the Spanish Wikipedia seems to have several sources that have significant coverage of Buenaventura that could be added to the article if someone can translate them: [6], [7], [8]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minimal coverage, some of which is in tabloid newspapers, and all about the same thing - non-notable. Giant Snowman 14:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as I waited for others to comment and, analyzing this again, I find nothing to suggest there's solid notability apart from the apparent links. Nothing currently confidently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTINHERITED, I'm not convinced that the minimal general coverage of this individual is not more to do with his relationship with Guardiola than himself. Fenix down (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing more than trivial mentions in independent sources Spiderone 18:44, 10 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. There is consensus that it is too soon for an article on this player. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lonnie Walker[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. I don't think he's notable enough to have an article yet. —MRD2014 (formerly Qpalzmmzlapq) T C 16:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Rikster2 (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a top ranked high school basketball player he may go on to be a notable college player, or maybe to the NBA or both, but he might lose interest, get injured, lack the skill to really continue at higher levels, or any number of other things. He is not notable yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think WP:TOOSOON definitely applies here as well. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly nothing for any actual independent notability and I would've pursued PROD. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Images[edit]

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

This company sells stock and historical photograph. But their website only lists 200 images, and the rest is loren ipsum filler text. This is not indicative of a notable company. Senator2029 “Talk” 15:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as corporate promotionalism. Quis separabit? 19:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches have found nothing better and the article has nothing else outstanding to suggest the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is nothing to indicate that it passes WP:COMPANY or WP:GNG. In addition to the company's website in the article, there is a Cody images blog, which looks like it was last updated in 2010. I couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources Mduvekot (talk) 19:08, 9 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 Procedural Close. Article speedy deleted (non-admin closure) ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

L. S. Caldwell & Associates Inc.,[edit]

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

If the consensus is for deletion, the following duplicate article should also be deleted:

If the consensus is to keep, the kept article should have the title "L.S. Caldwell & Associates". ubiquity (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability; just another company doing everyday business. Article written like advertisement. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Pure promotion, as indicated by the long section that links to the descriptions of all their projects on their home page. ubiquity (talk) 15:41, 3 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. There is consensus that the subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Edwards[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG having never played in a fully professional league and only received a small amount of standard coverage in local and Welsh Premier media. Kosack (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY and unlikely to pass it anytime soon. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:54, 10 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. KTC (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21C Media Group[edit]

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

This article was subject to an earlier AfD that was closed due to the lack of any input (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/21C Media Group).

I would like to nominate it for the same reasons as the earlier nominator. Does not appear to meet notability criteria. Citobun (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches have found only a few several links, nothing to suggest the depth this article needs. Delete as there's nothing else convincing for independent notability. Notifying 1st AfDer CorporateM. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet notability criteria. Tom29739 ^[talk] 19:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kill Shot (video game)#Sequel. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Shot Bravo (video game)[edit]

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

Appears to be paid for spam. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotion, not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kill Shot (video game)#Sequel. The launch got coverage ([9], [10]), but I don't see any reviews in a WP:VG/RS Google custom search. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kill Shot (video game)#Sequel. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 14:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Shot (video game)[edit]

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

Added by what appears to be a paid editor. No refs to support notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, just advertising. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's got several reviews cataloged at Metacritic, including [11] from Pocket Gamer, [12] from Gamezebo, and [13] from 148apps.com. It was also the subject of a lawsuit that got some attention: [14] from Gamesindustry.biz, [15] from VentureBeat. Also, [16] from Adweek looks pretty in-depth. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I expanded the article. I think it makes much more of a claim to notability now, and it's not especially promotional. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references given by NinjaRobotPirate. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article doesn't look to bad after expansion. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 14:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of Calicut. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM 23:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anwarul Islam Women's Arabic College Mongam[edit]

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

~~Advertising, marketing or public relations •~~ Arts Rescuer 09:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC) — ArtsRescuer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Shafinusri (talk • contribs). [reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Calicut, of which it is affiliated. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a degree-awarding institution and is affiliated to a recognised university. Just because an Indian college is affiliated to a university doesn't mean it's part of it - such institutions are independent, separate, and usually given their own articles. Not advertising in any way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Calicut. This "institution" offers a grand total of -wait for it- TWO courses, that can accommodate no less than 50(!) students in total. This school is so small, it should be treated like any non-notable elementary school, or as a faculty at best. And then of course there is its utter failure to pass WP:GNG and WP:NORG, but WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES aint caring 'bout that, innit? We don't care if, due to this class's size, there are most likely no sources to write a decent page, eh? - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It is neither an elementary school nor a faculty! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Calicut. Per above. Way too many of such articles lingering forth on Wiki which are barely worth two-lines of content. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frosmo[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Kvng with the following rationale "depth of coverage is debatable, this is not an uncontroversial deletion, please use WP:AFD". I do not consider the sources present there to be sufficient, and I cannot find anything else. [17] seems to be a description of the company at some Finnish event (they got an unnotable award, maybe?). Next source is a blog of some company called "Padtravel". There is routine coverage (WP:ROUTINE) of funding it has secured from ArcticStartup (a website which describes himself as PR-related) and travolution, a niche portal devoted to online travel industry. There's another blog about the company from Adweek. The best source may be [18], as venturebeat looks a bit more reliable, but even if we count it as somewhat reliable website with decent reach (Alexa rank 2k+), notability requires more then one good source. You know, the section about coverage in multiple reliable sources? As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: what is your assessment of the AdWeek coverage? ~Kvng (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: Adweek is a trade journal that seems to include some blogs; it's reliability is borderline. I guess it really depends on whether we can establish that this article is good faithed - or is it paid-for PR piece? And I just cannot muster much good faith when it comes to marketing publications (and AGF is not required for off-wiki sources). Tell me: what makes you think this would be an acceptable source? Why would you trust it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- a thinly disguised advertisement. There are lots of companies in the world; some are notable and most are not, and I'd need to see more than just the usual run-of-the-mill churn that every company gets regardless of its actual significance. Wikipedia is not a billboard and has, rightly, always defended itself against being used as one. Reyk _YO! 16:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Reyk: are you arguing that the cited coverage of this company is WP:ROUTINE or are you making some protest about WP:NCORP?

I didn't mention NCORP at all, so what is the point of that question? I am saying that the article is an advertisement masquerading as an article and is based entirely on the low-key usual churn that every company accumulates regardless of its significance. Reyk _YO! 10:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK so it is spam and should be deleted per WP:DEL4. This requires you argue that the article contains "no relevant or encyclopedic content". That seems like a pretty high bar to clear. The information in the article is verifiable and some criticism is included so it is not entirely unbalanced or promotional though there certainly is room for improvements in these departments. ~Kvng (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to continue pestering everyone who disagrees with you? Reyk _YO! 20:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, I entered this with open mind about whether this should be deleted. I originally deprodded not because I was convinced that it should be kept but because it didn't look like an uncontroversial deletion. In my comments here, I was trying to help you make a more solid case for deletion as your initial statement wasn't particularly specific to this article. Sorry if I annoyed you. I'll shut up now. ~Kvng (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of this convinces at all for the applicable companies and general notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Is this some sort of C-P !vote? What are you referring to when you say "this"? ~Kvng (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. ~Kvng (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kvng: No, I am sorry, you don't get off so easily: you are essentially saying it is WP:ITSNOTABLE, because random links. I spend 30 minutes reviewing them and I posted my criticism of them above. Post your analysis of them, and why you consider them to satisfy notability, please. This discussion is based on arguments, not on votes and ILIKEITs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AdWeek is a trade publication in the subject's industry. Coverage here indicates notability within that industry. There are two references from AdWeek concerns both have bylines and coverage is significant. You have acknowledged VentureBeat as a reliable source. The coverage here is significan if a bit bloggy but subject to editorial control so I'm quite comfortable with it. I don't know anything about Internet Weekly News or Entertainment Close-Up other than they are in the database at HighBeam and have covered the topic. Coverage here is significant but does have a PR smell to it. We've already met the multiple sources requirement with AdWeek and VentureBeat but I've included these to show there's a bit more out there. ~Kvng (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your arguments about the sources, and yes, we have 2, maybe 3 relatively in-depth sources. I am, however, still not convinced they are reliable. Perhaps it's my bias given the spam I see and the regular yearly PR-scandals on Wikipedia, but I have trouble seeing anything from this industry as reliable, because too many sources used to prop up notability of such companies seem like they could be selling coverage (i.e. working on the "pay for an article and we will write a story about you"). No, I don't have proof for that, and perhaps the ones here are above reproach. I am, however, going to demand proof of reliability of such trade publications: can you show that VB or in particular, Adweek, are seen by neutral observers as reliable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stop here. You may find someone interested in continuing this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources or Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). ~Kvng (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Simply to note, I'm still going with Delete as regardless of any outstanding news sources, the article still insinuates there's simply still not enough for solidity and is best removed from mainspace until said better can be available. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – The company meets WP:CORPDEPTH, albeit on a weak level, having received significant coverage in two bylined news articles published by reliable sources. Source examples are listed below. Also, the article does not have a particularly promotional tone. It does not extol the benefits or greatness of the company, nor does it encourage readers to do business with the company in any manner. The article also includes criticism of some of the company's products, which is certainly not advertising. The article simply provides a neutral overview of this software company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Frosmo Social Optimizer Helps Sites Track Users and Customize To Increase Revenue". Adweek.
"Frosmo’s analytics help web sites engage with people, not numbers". VentureBeat.

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 19:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elvira Vinogradova[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced and no sources. Not sure if CSD or PROD is more appropriate, but figured AFD would get more attention and possible fixing of this article, if necessary. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(changed to Delete) Coincidentally, I was just about to make an edit that removed the unsourced information when I saw that the article had been nominated for AfD. I was able to find that Elvira Vinogradova was awarded the Russian Order of Honour [24], so I think that the article should be kept. However, it is now a very short article. If someone could translate the tvkultura.ru page and the blurb from the Kremlin announcement, I can add more information. « D. Trebbien (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Kremlin announcement is a list of television employees receiving state awards, with the coverage of Vinogradova just giving her job title. The tvkultura.ru page is an employee bio hosted by her employer, so not independent, and could be used to source uncontroversial biographical information but not to support notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per dtrebbien, the Russian Order of Honour confers notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per dtrebbian. Also in the first AFD on this topic, it was noted that there were 100 Google hits in Russian, and then in discussion that those hits were of high quality. I added a couple micro-bits to the article. --do ncr am 03:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said in the first discussion that the sources found by a Google search were of high quality. The closest thing to that is that one editor said that they were relevant, i.e. that they were about this Elvira Vinogradova rather than someone else with the same name. In the last ten years we've moved on from the position that we can keep an article, especially one about a living person, on the basis of a count of Google hits. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep have found some more sources regarding her award. --TheDomain (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references given in the article contain barely one-word mentions of her. The Order of Honour is the third-lowest Russian order and is commonly given to fairly ordinary Russian bureaucrats. Her job title given in Ref no. 2 [25] translates something like Section Head in the Studio of Culturological Programming of the Directorate of the Branch of ... To me this suggests an apparatchick/bureaucrat rather than an actual creative professional. I did a fairly extensive Google search for her name in Russian and found very little. There are a few (very few) occasional brief mentions of her name in the media in relation to TV programming, but never anything substantive like an interview with her, or a profile of her, or even just an extended (a few paragraphs) quote of her opinions about something. I don't see anything here approaching passing WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rather than closing this, I think further discussion on this would be better to generate clear consensus. st170e^talk 00:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, given that its one of the most important awards of the Russian Federation, and that there are indeed enough (high-quality) hits regarding her to be found (in Russian at least). - LouisAragon (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of Honour (Russia) is the 3-d lowest state order in precedence among state orders of Russia. There are only two orders below it, and thirteen above it. In fact, among the two orders below it, the Order of Friendship is reserved for foreign nationals, and the Order of Parental Glory is reserved for parents of exceptionally large families, a very special category. So de facto, the Order of Honour (Russia) is the lowest level state order open to most ordinary Russian citizens, It is not "one of the most important awards of the Russian Federation". I would like to know what you meant by "enough (high-quality) hits regarding her to be found (in Russian at least)". They are certainly not in evidence among the references cited in the article itself (those contain barely one-word mentions of her, except for her own official web page[26], which is a primary non-independent source. As I wrote above, being a native Russian speaker, I did attempt to look for references for her in Russian and found very little. Nsk92 (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence has been provided here or in the previous discussion that any of the sources found by a Google search are of high quality. See my comment on the talk page for my analysis of the Russian-language sources, as for some inexplicable reason I can post other comments here but the Mediawiki software refuses to save my edit when I try to post my delete opinion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that this award is enough to meet the requirements of WP:ANYBIO. I'm no expert on the Russian honours system, but according to our list of orders, decorations, and medals of Russia this comes near the bottom of the pecking order of Russian honours: something like an MBE in the UK, which has always been held to be two or three levels below that needed for automatic notability. It may be that there are sources in Russian that show a pass of the general notability guideline, but, since I haven't used my Russian in anger for nearly forty years, it will take me some time to check them out. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 86.17.222.157 is voting Delete, per their message on the talk page. « D. Trebbien (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pinging Ymblanter who is generally knowledgeable about Russian topics. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She is likely not notable, but I have no time to look in detail now, will try to properly review the article in the evening.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I do not see any notability. She is basically a bureaucrat, the head of the archive film division at the Kultura TV, one of the national TV channels in Russia (out of about a dozen). In this role, she is often a program director, and sometimes gets cited in media (I was not able to find any interviews, but couple of dozens of attributed quotes). As noted above, the decoration is pretty routine.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quoted sources in Russian do not tell anything about her because there is nothing to tell, except only one fact: she received a medal, but this medal is not something really significant, as was already noted by people above. My very best wishes (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nsk92 and Ymblanter « D. Trebbien (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently not one of the more notable recipients of Order of Honour (Russia). If there is ever a list of such recipients a one line entry in there with the details currently in the article would be the best place for the current content. Aoziwe (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rebelution (band) § Discography. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rebelution EP[edit]

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

I'm not sure this EP is independently notable of the band. I can't seem to find any sources about it and unlike Courage to Grow, it never seemed to have charted. It was deprodded for some reason. I'd guess, but the editor's been here since 2014 so I don't think it's a WP:BITE situation to ask that a new article actually so independent notability rather than add it to the 200k and expanding backlog of pages at Category:Articles lacking sources. The other EPs at Rebelution_(band)#EPs don't exist so I don't see any issue with deletion rather than a redirect (the only links are the band and the next album). Ricky81682 (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself tagged, nothing at all for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rebelution (band) as per WP:BEFORE. ~Kvng (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is too short. 2602:306:3357:BA0:532:B317:DB4F:1390 (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Too short" is not a valid deletion argument. Edgeweyes (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:TOOSHORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rebelution (band) § Discography as a valid search term. Cursory source searches are not providing any coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 3 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 05:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Echostage[edit]

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

This article is mostly based on the companies own website. Looks fairly spammy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A venue of this size is inherently notable. Given the number of notable acts that have performed at Echostage, that's additional reason to retain the article. If the wording is objected to, add a tag and/or prune it back, but the performance site is a valid subject for a encyclopedia entry. Jus da fax 04:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the number of notable acts at a venue is a criterion for notability . LibStar (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete almost all the coverage is about it being a venue rather than being the subject of the coverage. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:32, 3 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. KTC (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Nilsen[edit]

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

PROD removed as a part of a driveby-DePRODing, I still confirm my PROD here as there's simply nothing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please Meters (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A high school pole vaulter. Impressive, but no evidence of substantial and prolonged coverage. Fails WP:NHSPHSATH and certainly isn't notable for anything else.. Setting a high school athletic record simply isn't notable. If he stops now he will be just another high school record holder. If he keeps going he will likely become notable. WP:Too soon. Meters (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete competitors in pole vaulting only in high school, he is not yet notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. High school records are not notable. While I did find sources for the subject, [27],[28], all of these are local sources in Kansas City. Doesn't pass WP:GNG at this time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:10, 11 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 05:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jody St. Michael[edit]

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

Apparently only best known for the 1996 film Hellraiser and IMDb lists nothing else convincing to actually suggest solidly better for WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG, my searches have found nothing better at all. This is also questionable for WP:BIO1E at best since there's nothing completely convincing of independent notability, can be redirected to the 1996 film if needed. This basically has not changed since Dennis Brown tagged it for unsourced in November 2008. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mainly small roles or monsters, so not enough at present for WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: She played a gorilla!. But seriously, she's shown some longevity in a cutthroat business, and a redirect to a relatively recent horror film won't cut it. Actually, it's kind of remarkable for a woman actor to have so many roles of this sort, it's an unusual specialty, that alone is rather interesting. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NACTOR with insufficiently notable credits. Longevity in the business isn't enough (even if she's the gorilla your dreams, Montanabw). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 5 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. KTC (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NWE Pro Wrestling[edit]

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

I came across this as an A7 deletion, but the TV appearance gives off just enough notability to where this wouldn't be a completely clean speedy deletion, despite it only being aired on a public access television channel. As such, I felt that AfD would be a slightly better avenue for this, just to be on the safe side - although it is extremely borderline.

A search brings up little to show that this group is notable enough for an article. It exists and it's more organized than the average group of this type, but it's not enough to pass notability guidelines as a whole on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Incidentally, I agree that there's enough of a notability claim to make this a case for AfD, not speedy deletion. That said, reviewing the evidence, I don't see this as notable. All references I can find to it are either not independent from the subject (such as their webpage and social media), small non-reliable blogs, directory listings of local events, and TV guide style listings of what is showing on TV. None of these are sufficient to establish notability. As such, delete. Fieari (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing shows this a notable promotion that meets WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This wrestling promotion has been around for close to 5 years now and is on TV every two weeks they deserve to keep this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.55.12.216 (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of tallest buildings in Pakistan. MBisanz ^talk 05:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UBL Tower[edit]

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

Recommending deletion, as subject has yet to receive non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate said sources, but were not successful. Please do not hesitate to contact me should evidence of such coverage be located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 01:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 11:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deete This is too short of an article. 2602:306:3357:BA0:532:B317:DB4F:1390 (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Too short" is not a valid deletion argument. Edgeweyes (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There does not appear to currently be sufficient independent, significant coverage to establish notability. As this building is still under construction, it should be made clear that notability may be established in the near future and the article can be restored or recreated if necessary at that time. Edgeweyes (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, perhaps to List of tallest buildings in Pakistan, where it could be mentioned as a building under construction. No need to delete entirely. It should not be restored as a full article, however, unless there is adequate sourcing provided. --do ncr am 20:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Red Hot Chili Peppers members. J04n(talk page) 19:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Calhoun[edit]

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

I was first involved when I moved this article from draft to main space, thinking it was ready for main space. I was contacted by the subject off-Wikipedia to delete the article, even though I am not the one who wrote it. According to WP:BIODEL, Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. That is why I am requesting a deletion of this article. CookieMonster755 ^📞 ^✉ ^✓ 23:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing convincing here of the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Red Hot Chili Peppers, which presently has no mention of the subject's contribution to the band. This will improve the merge target article per WP:PRESERVE. The subject has received some coverage, but not finding enough to qualify a standalone article. See below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References List of Loyola Marymount University people - Wikipedia

Comment - If there is currently and are no chances of any actual solid independent notability, we should not have this vulnerable to restoration and restarting thus she was also not s major member of the band us best sufficed simply as a mention. The current information of her own career is not convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection can be used, if necessary, to prevent recreation. This often isn't necessary, though. You'd be surprised at the number of redirected articles that are never recreated. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would support redirect and page protection. ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 19:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into either/both of Red Hot Chili Peppers / List of Red Hot Chili Peppers members, but article on its own is not much and subject has requested removal. Aoziwe (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep and seeing as the nom hasn't made an arguments since nomination I'm closing as Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norazia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It seems it's time for better attention at this since February 2011, my searches have simply found nothing better than this and this with my searches at local news Bali Times, Jakarta Globe and Jakarta Post finding nothing else better. Notifying 1st AfDers Arxiloxos and Duffbeerforme. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to sufficient sourcing currently included in the article here is more coverage.

"Norazia leaves rag trade for funk", Straits Times, 7 July 1994

Abdullah, Saiful Azhar (22 April 2000), "Norazia's heart with Malaysia", The New Straits Times

"Masih ingat Norazia Ali?", Berita Minggu Singapore, 15 July 2012

The second one includes the quotes "Not until she started singing "cibidi, bidi, cibidi, bang," did we realise that she was Malaysia's favourite child star in 1977." "Norazia was only 12 years old when she sang the song which became a hit then." She is notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With due regard for mitigating systemic geographical bias, and given Duffbeerforme's additional sources, I think the article's worth keeping. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Appears to meet WP:BASIC per the sources presented in this discussion above. WP:AGF about the offline sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 07:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nischal (actor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nischal(actor)

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

Certainly time for another AfD since 2008 considering Wikipedia has changed since then and I believe I myself would've frankly suggested delete at the first AfD, as my searches have found only happenstance coverage at News, browsers, Highbeam and WP:INDAFD, nothing actually suggesting any better solid notability for Wikipedia aside from the usual expected Indian gossip news. For convenience, I'm notifying the only still active 1st AfDers Stifle and MichaelQSchmidt to let them know about this new AfD. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

looking beyond:

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Nischal child Nischal Nishal Chandra Master Nishal

In October 2008 - No consensus

In November 2008 - keep

Keep and re-title Nishal Chandra as the fellow has coverage under his full adult name [29][30][31] even if not so much as a child actor,[32][33] when his adult issues receive coverage. Since a person may leave acting and pursue a regular life, we need not continue judging him only as a prolific child actor under WP:ENT and can add WP:BASIC into the consideration pool. Needs work, not deletion because it has not been improved. WP:NTEMP anyone? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MichaelQSchmidt's search has found only primary sources, such as news reports about his latest activities, and primary sources don't count toward notability. We need secondary sources! It's one thing to assume that there aren't any secondary sources (no retrospective coverage in news media, no appearances in books, academic journals, etc.), because that can easily be disproven with a little work, but MichaelQSchmidt has done the searching and shown that these don't exist. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment expecting academic journal coverage is raising the bar too high for non- academic subjects. Atlantic306 (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This ancient article has been surviving off of a single reference. Unless this article can be repaired in a timely fashion that proves that the subject matter is notable and the subject of significant coverage, I see no reason why it should remain up any longer. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 06:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given by myself in the last AFD. Still no proper sourcing. If kept, rename to Nishal Chandra. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage seems to have been really driven by much more notable first wife, notability is not inherited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 7 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 (note: this was closed by Group29 as "keep" as a NAC but this wasn't recorded at the top of this AfD, hence this note - see [34]). Bencherlite ^Talk 00:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 UCLA shooting[edit]

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

This is completely non-notable, as it's just a run-of-the-mill murder-suicide involving just two people that conveniently occurred on a school campus. The press got a hold of this, thought it might be another mass school shooting, and ran the coverage, but it has since died down now that more details are coming in. The campus has already been declared safe and reopened; there's nothing else to see here that would suggest long-lasting notability. Parsley Man (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely agreed with the above here. Page should be deleted. I don't understand why every tiny shooting should have a wikipedia page. Originally it was reported that it was possible that it was multiple gunmen across campus, but that's clearly not what happened. This is completely non-notable. Would highly vote for deletion. 2605:E000:858A:CB00:DCF:B9B9:B0F2:EF2D (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created the page assuming it would turn out to be something bigger. Turns out it wasn't. Rossbawse (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guess this teaches you not to rush to create articles for events that just hit the air. Parsley Man (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the time being. See talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I anticipated that the incident may ultimately prove to be non-notable; that's why I started a conversation to that effect on the Talk page (which is where I thought, and still think, it should be at this early hour). There is, however, no need to rush to delete until more facts are known about the incident, the participants and the reaction (e.g., if UCLA institutes some new policy because of the incident, it could prove to be notable though a merge may also be appropriate). General Ization ^Talk 00:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the incident, participants, and reaction are routine, we haven't had any notable statements made by notable people, and I don't see what kind of new policies UCLA can institute because of the incident aside from making the campus a gun-free zone (which I assume it already is because most schools are). Parsley Man (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with people above. Wikipedia isn't a news wiki site, there is a news portion of wiki that is appropriate. This simply isn't noteworthy enough to have its own entry. Even hours after the even the page is barely even a stub class article. I recommend deletion citing the notability guidelines. Please delete. GoldenSHK (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to UCLA, and add a sentence there. we have Category:University shootings in the United States, so not many articles on this topic. the professor is a textbook author, but nothing particularly notable beyond that, so he doesnt appear to be notable by BLP standards. unfortunately, murders and murder/suicides are so common that they dont rise themselves to article status. the best i can see, aside from a UCLA sentence, is if someone created a list of university shootings, based on the category, but i dont see a need for that, either as an alternative to the category, or to document any other less notable shootings. the reason for this being in the news cycle is that we dont normally expect students to kill, we expect universities to be civilized. if only it were more true (mercurywoodrose)2602:304:CFD0:6350:B8CF:4C57:18E9:ACDD (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 02:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable event with major worldwide coverage. At least keep it for now, as more may come out of this event during the ongoing investigation. There was also a very large manhunt, and that should add to the notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beejsterb (talk • contribs) 04:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a manhunt, it was a search for possible additional shooters. The shooter was most likely dead when the police responded, according to reports. Parsley Man (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is a global project that should document purely notable events. With due regards to the unfortunate scenario of the accident, this is a very ordinary and run-of-the-mill shooting. The investigations that are happening are similar and so is the subsequent campus search – very ordinary and regular reportage, nothing notable. Xender Lourdes (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge into parent article~~ as per delete votes, however the incident is notable enough that it should be kept on Wikipedia and transferred to the parent article. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 06:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incident already listed at History of the University of California, Los Angeles, however this incident is notable enough that I think it should have a mention on the parent article. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 06:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have ~~merged~~ the article into University of California, Los Angeles; if it is not controversial I think a ~~delete of this article~~ is in store. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 06:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to speedy keep considering how expanded the article is, and how massive the media coverage is now. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 06:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and WP:NOTNEWS. -- ChamithN (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - "2016 UCLA shooting" is a quite plausible search term, therefore, the article should either be kept or merged with a redirect and history kept in place. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I propose that if the article cannot be kept, that the term redirect to History of the University of California, Los Angeles#2016 shooting. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect While this does not support a stand-alone article, the shooting of a professor on campus by a student is a notable event. I am not, however, generally in favor of keeping such thinks on the University's page (unless unusual details made that appropriate). What I'm looking for is a redirect target, perhaps to a List of gun-related homicides in the United States or List of gun-related deaths in California, or List of gun-related homicides in the California in 2016. Along the lines of List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, List of fatal alligator attacks in the United States by decade Ideas for a redirect, User:Jax 0677, User:Zigzig20s, User talk:Rossbawse, User:General Ization, User:Optakeover, User:Parsley Man? Anybody? E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was the professor a prominent researcher? I wikified him but another editor removed the red link.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a historical event related to the university, I believe it should be mentioned on the UCLA article. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 14:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is more to the story apparently. He had a "kill list", with another UCLA professor on the list. This AFD seems premature.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The event is more widespread than just the shooter, [35]. It seems likely that additional policies will be put into place, specifically, I think more locations will be able to shelter in place better in the future. McKay (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like something that can just easily be mentioned in the main UCLA article without any problem. Parsley Man (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of UCLA or something. This isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article. -- Veggies (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. "Experts say murders of professors on campus are not common, but they do happen." Incidents of violence are common, and the only reason this one got so much coverage was because it happened to be inside a university building. At this point, it seems to be an isolated incident of violence that does not merit WP inclusion. However, the reaction to the incident may eventually merit inclusion at History of the University of California, Los Angeles (depending on how future events occur), so I would !vote for a redirect to that article in the alternative. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 15:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

Comment The plot is starting to thicken a bit, with the report (from Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck) that a "kill list" was found at the gunman's Minnesota home and the ~~implication~~ revelation ("Sarkar ... drove from Minnesota to the Los Angeles area with two handguns, multiple round of ammunition and several magazines in a backpack, according to the LAPD chief."[36]) that he travelled from MN to California to kill the professor and the report that a woman on the list was found dead.[37] As I earlier suggested, I recommend we give the case some time to develop before we write it off as a "simple" murder-suicide. General Ization ^Talk 16:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAPID Suggest we suspend this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This: [38]. Changing to Keep. Even the mere fact of targeting a second professor on a "kill list" persuades me. This AFD is an object lesson in not rushing to delete breaking news stories. I move we close this now. It can be reopened if these stories fail to pan out, but the AFD on a breaking story not only makes Wikipedia look idiotic, it discouraged editors from building the article. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty presumptive and doesn't mean much. Parsley Man (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Story is all over the news, WaPo, LATimes, in fact, the problem here was in rushing to AFD. AS WP:RAPID states, "it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge." This is a textbook example of why WP:RAPID exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:E.M.Gregory that this should be closed for now.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think E.M.'s reminder of WP:RAPID is right on point. General Ization ^Talk 16:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Close per comments by E.M.Gregory et al. and per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Events that are only covered ... immediately after [the] event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult ... to determine shortly after the event occurs... That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." Further "analyis or discussion" of this event would appear to be more likely than not. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC) 17:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For now, I recommend allowing this discussion to continue for at least one week after it started, to allow everyone an opportunity to comment on the AFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more than just a one-off murder-suicide. Guy has a kill list, kills someone in Minnesota, drives 2000 miles with guns to kill a professor in his office. More than passing coverage in media, hence meets WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, per Carlos immediately above and depending on the coverage it gets from now on. Doesn't seem very run-of-the-mill to me. ansh 666 17:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge & redirect – Still in news cycle, notable content, hasty nomination. Baking Soda (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep or Strong merge & redirect - Meets WP:GNG. 174.95.4.78 (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. I am seeing a lot of claims that this afd is too early, and saying that "there will be more to say, there just isn't yet", and stuff like that. These arguments are contrary to how wikipedia works, we write articles about things that are already existent, and that have already happened, we don't precreate articles in anticipation of content. Yes, this event appears to qualify under GNG, but I don't think it should yet be in it's own article, I think it would fit just fine at History of the University of California, Los Angeles#2016 shooting or University of California, Los Angeles#History for now. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand "the way things work" when it comes to the investigation of and articles about violent crimes. The crime itself has already occurred and received widespread, national (indeed international) coverage, which justified an initial presumption of notability. It is unrealistic to think that all of the aspects of any crime, some of which potentially determine its notability, will be known within the first day or days after the event. I was perhaps the first to suggest (on the article's Talk page) that we keep an open mind concerning its notability, especially when it became clear that it was not a hostage situation or (obvious) domestic terrorism. But the argument that the article was "precreated in anticipation of content" is misguided. In such cases, we won't know what we don't know until the authorities have a chance to discover it; in the mean time, this is beginning to appear to be much more than just a "run of the mill" murder-suicide, as the original nominator proclaimed it. General Ization ^Talk 18:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my word choices were not very good. I can't help but recall the San Bernadino shooting not too long ago, and the activity that followed during it's unfolding on 2015 San Bernardino attack. My core argument is that with events like this, where the investigation is still unfolding and information is being constantly updated and contradicted, I feel that the creation of an article on the subject is a futile and wasteful effort, as the messy process of trying to keep up with every new piece of info from latimes or whatever will necessitate most of the article being copy edited and rewritten. (Not to mention that the style and format of such editing is rife with WP:NOTNEWS vios.) Tpdwkouaa (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of an article on such a prominent event, whether or not it proves to be notable, is neither "futile" nor "wasteful"; one might say it is inevitable. Better that an article be created by experienced and responsible editors, prepared to copy edit, rewrite and cull incorrect and/or poorly referenced information when it appears, than the article be used as a container for all the misinformation that regularly emerges during such events on social media. All in all, I think our collective restraint with regard to this article has been admirable, and the pace of its expansion appropriate. General Ization ^Talk 19:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the nominator, I am changing my stance to Keep. Goddamn it. Parsley Man (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, you also have the prerogative to close the discussion early, if you choose to do so. As others have said, there is nothing to preclude a subsequent nomination if it should prove to be warranted, and this discussion will remain for reference. General Ization ^Talk 18:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to, though. Parsley Man (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even the nominator should refrain from closing his own AFD if there are multiple outstanding delete !votes. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Closing a discussion is not all that difficult, but it is not supposed to be withdrawn by Nom while there are outstanding delete !votes or or closed by any editor who has already rendered an opinion. Any editor who has not yet weighed in is free to close this now. And probably should.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No real opinion for deletion or otherwise, but I agree with those above that it should be closed for now per WP:RAPID, and reopened later if it seems to not meet WP:GNG. Gluons12 ^talk 18:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I was going to say delete last night, but decided to sleep on it. In light of new information about this shooting, it appears to be notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia really should do something about people trying to delete every incident that looks like a terrorist attack. There is something more to this when this fellow is targeting not only a former professor but also a former girlfriend, and weapons-up with 2 semiautomatic weapons and drives cross-continent to do it, as if he intended to terrorize a campus, not just settle scores with one professor. Redhanker (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have no confirmation that he wanted to attack anyone aside from the people in his hit-list, though... Parsley Man (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He did not need to bring two semi-automatic weapons and multiple magazines with him in the car to California, as reliable sources (LAPD Chief Becker) report he did, if he only anticipated shooting two unarmed university professors. General Ization ^Talk

But he seemed to shoot himself right after he killed Klug. Parsley Man (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can reasonably infer his intent from the weaponry with which he equipped himself; he was clearly prepared to kill more than two people, though the others he was prepared to kill might have been the law enforcement officers he expected might obstruct his apparent mission. We can infer nothing from the fact he didn't actually use all of his weaponry and instead killed himself, because there are too many possible explanations, the confirmation of any of which is now impossible (we would need to know his thoughts at that moment). General Ization ^Talk 23:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hasty and presumptuous of eventual notability. Kanatonian (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil comments by editor now blocked for vandalism

Keep. Possible terrorist attack by a Bengali Muslim that is being covered up as workplace violence. Kafir and lovin' it (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC) — Kafir and lovin' it (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It was not workplace violence, and do you have a source for the Bengali Muslim claim? Parsley Man (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The story is indeed being framed as workplace violence and the shooter was, until very recently, repeatedly described as a "white male" even though he was a dark Bengali Muslim. Kafir and lovin' it (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources please, if you don't have any then please stop making possibly BLP-violating claims (IIRC it applies to recently-deceased people). ansh 666 21:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only...the guy hasn't worked there in years, and even then, it was in an unofficial position as teaching assistant, so the workplace violence angle is very presumptive. The reports have treated it more like a school shooting more than anything. Plus, I have never, EVER seen any descriptions of him being a "white male" in any of the articles I've read, so I don't know where that came from. Parsley Man (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is it possible for someone to nominate an article for deletion and work on that article and yet not read any of the sources? You're either a liar or unable to read. Dozens of sources reported the shooter was a white male wearing black until today. And CBS just reported how the media screwed up on this point. I don't think you can be trusted with things like facts and evidence, Parsley Man. It's one thing to make a mistake, it's another to deny out of hand the facts. You cannot be trusted. Kafir and lovin' it (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That nomination was done before the new info (i.e. the dead woman, the kill list, etc.) came up today. And I wasn't able to read those early reports because I use Google's recent news search, which shows the most recent articles by chronological order, for events like this and I use the first results of whatever comes up. Also, you didn't really answer Ansh666's question for sources on the Bengali Muslim claim, so I can say the same about you for trustworthiness. Parsley Man (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kafir and lovin' it: WP:CIVILITY: read it. General Ization ^Talk 22:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Extensive media coverage Wikipedia:Notability (events). Merge into History of the University of California, Los Angeles#2016 shooting if media coverage duration fades.WhereAmI (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and revisit in 3-4 months. This story certainly has the potential to have legs because of the ongoing national debate in the U.S. about allowing students and faculty to carry guns on college campuses. If there is still continuing coverage (beyond only local press) of this story about 3-4 months from now, we'll know that the article deserves to be kept for good. If non-local coverage will have essentially disappeared by then, it will be time to delete this article. Nsk92 (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that with killings in 2 states this will fade, University angle tends ot keep these things alive. note that the 2006 San Diego State University shooting has attracted ongoing interest.sources.

WP:SNOWBALL. We all have better things to do. (not sure if I should x out my previous !vote after throwing a SNOWBALL.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage is national, not local, so the nominator's characterization of non-notable, as it's just a run-of-the-mill murder-suicide involving just two people is inaccurate. The coverage received is not consistent with WP:109PAPERS that would merit deletion. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not trying to cite many WPs here, based on my common sense as a person who has gone through the Ph.D. process in a U.S. school, I think this event will open up the discussion about the terrible work atmosphere in engineering graduate schools in U.S.. It will pass the test of time as an important event. Taha (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. This is a valuable perspective that many of us cannot speak to; I'm glad you did. General Ization ^Talk 14:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it is a very notable article in the immediate future and if it turns out to not be notable over a larger period of time, say in a coupel months, then it can be deleted. Until now it is generating a lot of attention. AustinBrister (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: per WP:NTEMP notability is not temporary. If it is notable today, it is notable for eternity. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a ~~arbitrary~~ section break above to delineate the point at which new information emerged about this case that (I perceive) turned the tide of responses from a general consensus of Delete to Keep, in order to allow a potential closer to better assess the current consensus. General Ization ^Talk 15:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see many editors condemning User:Parsley Man's nomination as a rush to judgment. Assuming arguendo that notability was established once more details about the incident were revealed, there is still nothing objectionable about the nomination. At the time the nom was made, it was reasonable to have a good-faith belief, based on current news coverage, that this was a flash-in-the-pan murder-suicide. Even if the article had been deleted, it could have been easily recreated once notability is established. Additionally, I must oppose the position that this discussion should be speedily closed. Once more information came out, many editors reassessed their positions on the issue. This would not have been possible if the discussion had been prematurely closed, as has been suggested by some above. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 19:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of Wikipedia articles for individual murders. D3RP4L3RT (DERPALERT) (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per General Ization and Dervorguilla. I think the developments of the "kill list" and alleged additional murder absolutely imply "further analysis or discussion," and media coverage was indeed extensive. It makes little sense to delete the article now, only to resurrect it once/if further revelations transpire and are reported. GAB^gab 23:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a notable event. Per Sometimes the sky is blue's comment, notability is not temporary and therefore all the WP:NOTNEWS delete rationales aren't that valid here. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 19:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's the kind of topic that merits coverage on Wikipedia and is too big to fit into another article (would you want to put all or most of this information into the UCLA main article?), so I think this sad stupid horrible event merits its own article, sadly. Blythwood (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notable thing about this event is that because people thought it was a school shooting, the police response involved hundreds of special forces officers. It's not necessarily the murder that is noteworthy but the response. This is evidence of the growing normalization of school shootings in the US. User:Rileyfricke (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It stands as a far more significant event in the history of Los Angeles and UCLA than the UCLA Taser incident, which survived its own deletion discussion 10 years ago. Group29 (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. Covered nationally US and internationally in multiple countries. Covered extensively by radio, TV, and newspapers. Note that hatted individual's vote was Keep and may have been unfairly silenced beyond the uncivil conduct. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The basis cited by the editor who provided the collapsed !vote itself contained a WP:BLP violation, since it made an assertion about the perpetrator's religion that was not (and still is not) supported by reliable sources. That, combined with the uncivil commentary and the fact that the editor has been blocked indef, made the editor's comments less than credible and their !vote dispensable. General Ization ^Talk 12:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move for closure. The AfD has now been open for seven days, and all but one respondents since new information emerged on 2 June have called for the article to be kept, including the original nominator. WP:SNOWBALL. General Ization ^Talk 12:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Personally, this has been up for far too long already. Parsley Man (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. clear and simple. NOTNEWS does not apply to a story that has reached international attention.BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 9 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. Nomination is clearly based on an abject misunderstanding of what being a city even means, and no prospect of deletion exists whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selkirk, Manitoba[edit]

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

Selkirk Manitoba is Not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autistic editor (talk • contribs) 11:53, 3 June 2016‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a notable city in Canada, and the article has stood fine for 11 years. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ . Not notable Because steel mills and Major Hospital Not enough to make it notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autistic editor (talk • contribs) 12:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I'm not sure what's going on here, but WP:GEOLAND makes it very clear that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable." GAB^gab 12:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I know but Steel mills and Major Hospitals are not enough to make it notable i checked google i had 5 results for selkirk Manitoba then it shows Selkirk ave from Winnipeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autistic editor (talk • contribs) 12:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not keep !voting "delete" - you are already the nominator. GAB^gab 12:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know but The mental Health centre and Steel mills are Not enough to make it notable Autistic editor (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you read the GEOLAND policy cited above, as well as WP:N in general. As I mentioned, populated places are presumed notable by convention - including Selkirk. You may also want to look at this. Thanks. GAB^gab 12:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so What did selkirk Do besides Steel mills To make it notable Autistic editor (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Selkirk didn't need a steel mill or a hospital to be notable (although it does have them). For Wikipedia's purposes, every populated, legally recognized place is typically presumed to be notable. In other words, just being a city makes it notable. See WP:GEOLAND. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But Selkirk Manitoba Is Not Legally Recognized Unless It won Awards Autistic editor (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how this particular notability standard works. This has been explained several times above. GAB^gab 13:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cities are Only Legally Recognized if they won Awards Such as Transit or Beautiful Autistic editor (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, a city's legal status is not dependent on winning awards — it's dependent solely on the place's incorporated status, which is completely independent of whether some external organization granted it an award for some aspect of how it's run. "Legal recognition" of a city is granted by the government, not by non-profit organizations. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Okay So It won 2 times for Transit and 1 time for Beautiful So 3 wins so someone close this Discussion As Baseless

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brains (web series)[edit]

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

I declined a CSD A7 tag on this article just now. This fictional online drama series appears to have a bit of a following on the internet, but not much in the way of reliable sources. The best link I saw was for an online film festival website, but that seemed to be self-submitted. I'm bringing this to AfD simply because there have been a barrage of complaints about the CSD tag on the talk page, and we might as well give them all a fair hearing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the editor who tagged it for speedy deletion, I could find no sources to indicate that this series has received any significant independent coverage. The film festival selections appear impressive, but the festivals are little known, and their selection processes do not appear all too rigorous. The "barrage of complaints" at Talk:Brains (web series) are all from SPA contributors, expressing WP:ILIKEIT arguments. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WikiDan61. And by coincidence, I tagged it for speedy deletion too. No, we are not related. :-) OnionRing (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As it turns out, I didn't tag it for speedy. (I thought I had; I certainly was going to, but I guess OnionRing beat me to it!) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, and when I google the term "brains web series" I start getting results for web series with "brain" in the title on the very first page. That indicates a very small footprint on the web, which is a red flag for notability. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to confess that I assumed that this was an amateur film, albeit one produced with a proper script, director, camera and lighting crew, albeit on a tight budget. It isn't, it's just seems to be some blog - and the first episode of the series has had less views than some videos I've put up. Still, a few bits did make me chuckle. :-/ Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, the concept of the series is that it is a fictional vlog, documenting the post zombie apocalypse existence of its characters. So yeah, it's supposed to look like "just some blog". But the small number of views doesn't bolster its notability any. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 If you check some of the behind the scenes videos as well as their "official" website, they do have all the things you listed- script, director (Andrew Williams), etc. It is a tight budget, though, and definitely doesn't have an overly huge following. -Al — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.77.6.8 (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my view, a clear A7 candidate. Nowhere near passing WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked- they added a third party blog write up from a site called The Daily Fandom. That's something, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.77.6.8 (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @166.77.6.8: Please don't be disingenuous: they didn't add the citation from The Daily Fandom, you did. That's fine -- any editor is allowed to add information to the article. But by claiming that someone else added the information, you add a note of questionability to the whole process. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear agreement to delete and salt. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ventom Motion Entertainment Corp[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ventom Network India

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

Delete and WP:SALT. Company not notable and there have been repeated attempts in the past to promote this page, Ventom Network India and Shanky R.S Gupta. All 3 pages were deleted in the past and Lupdelhi was blocked indefinitely. WP:SPAM Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Previous AfD discussion can be found here. That page was deleted three times and the current page was also deleted once in Mar 2015. Please delete and SALT. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AfD tag was deleted by 116.203.78.130. I remember, even last time when I was dealing with these pages, I faced issued and threats (even on my Facebook). Check last 9 posts here on my TalkPage which includes a legal threat also. 10 minutes after the AfD tag was deleted, Prin Biz performed a page move to Ventom International Motion Corp. I have issued warning to the IP address. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT Per AKS.9955, I've also restored the AfD tag just deleted by a IP. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT IT. per above. KGirlTrucker87^{talk what I'm been doing} 23:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pass the salt - Large sockfarm is devoted to promoting this firm. Probably a G4 case, but in any event, this has gone on long enough. GAB^gab 20:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please SALT Ventom Network India P.L, Ventom Network, Ventom Motion Entertainment Corp and Ventom International Motion Corp all pages. I have initiated a WP:SPI here. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; obviously, per above. The lastest IP attempt to remove the template enhances the notion there's a deliberate attempt at using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:22, 10 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. KTC (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

eSewa[edit]

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

I can see no evidence of notability here. The very many refs show that it exists and this it has proper crede3ntials for handling financial transactions over the internet, but nothing to suggest notability. I appears to be yet another on-line financial portal, this time in Nepal, but that alone is not notability. It was tagged for notability in October 2012 and nothing seems to have improved since then. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are claims and sources but still nothing fully convincing of solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:22, 3 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. J04n(talk page) 19:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dotfuscator[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retain as notable Updated version reflects reliable sources. As part of Microsoft's Visual Studio, Dotfuscator is very widely known to the .NET community Gmt767 (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please retain the article as the product is clearly notable. Dotfuscator ships in-the-box with Visual Studio and is on millions of desktop computers. Regards, Daniel Vaughan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbvaughan (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found only a few links but nothing convincing for this applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (despite what looks like WP:COI/WP:SPA editing): A free version has been incorporated under licence into Visual Studio since 2003, and if that were all, it could redirect to Microsoft Visual Studio. The separate professional version, however, means that a standalone article appears warranted. Incorporation into a company article might be an option except that the product appears far more notable than the company. Review 1. Review 2. Review 3. Review 4 Relevant article. In a number of books including this and this. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will also go to the compromise of Drafting for now to allow better time and information as there's still questionability here. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic meets WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Obfuscation and .NET". The Journal of Object Technology. Vol. 4, No. 4, May–June 2005. pp. 79-83.
MSDN Magazine. Miller Freeman. pp. 11-12. (subscription required)
Reversing: Secrets of Reverse Engineering. John Wiley & Sons.
"Review: PreEmptive Way To Obfuscate .Net Apps". CRN Magazine
Windows Developer Power Tools. O'Reilly Media.
"Dotfuscator expands its functionality". InfoWorld.
Visual Basic 2008 For Dummies. John Wiley & Sons.
Professional Visual Studio 2010. John Wiley & Sons.

Keep Ditto above keeps' reasos. Aoziwe (talk) 12:55, 12 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. KTC (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KINGSUPREMEZ[edit]

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

Nigerian rapper. Only released an EP on a independent label. Only the usual social media links to be found. Bgwhite (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. All facebook references is definitely a major clue towards non-notability. Fieari (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable musician, fails WP:GNG, no non-trivial/independent sources to be found. GAB^gab 12:34, 3 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. While this was a difficult close, the primary consensus on the references available, which is the primary concern, is that they are not sufficient to support a full article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K. Johnston[edit]

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

No credible claim of significance, only one reference which is from her college. A simple Google search does not turn up anything of note. The CSD nomination was declined by Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant. — Music1201 ^talk 04:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On my first look in google, I found numerous sources that can be used in the article. I am currently working on expanding and adding references to this article. Yes, I declined the speedy with good reason. There is credible claim of significance. The nominator stated above, "only one reference which is from her college. A simple Google search does not turn up anything of note." His statement is just simply not true. Perhaps the nominator should read over WP:BEFORE. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. User:Music1201, did you do even the vaguest WP:BEFORE work here? ‑ Iridescent 17:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; has reliable sources but not particularly notable. I have also moved the article to Kathleen Johnston. MB298 (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has significant coverage across numerous reliable sources and thereby passes WP:GNG. Keep article here at wikipedia. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's peculiar and disturbing that solidly documented academic awards appear less valued by the community than being names Superslut of the Year. That should change. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: What is your basis for calling her award "solidly documented"? We only have her word that she won it. Which I don't doubt, but it's not solid documentation. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - My experience has been that, despite the occasional embarrassing incident, major universities vet the credentials of faculty posted on their websites. Perhapsmy experience isn't typical, perhaps it is. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain All of the research activity was part of large teams, and it is hard to know how to assign credit . The article, btw, is radically defective-- All the references there cover only through 2000. Her 1999 or 2000 CV is the one given in the current Louisiana Tech directory, [39] tho not updated since then. The SURA lab ref was last updated in 2000. But she has remained active in the field: there's a 2014 paper in ArXIV [40]., and one from 2015 [41] again as part of a very large team, and both still from LouisianaTech. I have not yet searched in the intervening years. Did none of the people working on this notice the problem?. Materialscientist, Headbomb, can you be of any help here ? DGG ( talk ) 14:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had noticed the same thing as DGG and held off commenting until now because of it. Her top-cited paper in Google scholar ("Strange-quark contributions") has a citation-to-author ratio of less than three, and she appears in a middling position, so it is difficult to find a convincing case for notability via WP:PROF#C1. Directing a center is not an indication of notability (huge numbers of academics do this, basically because it sounds more impressive to call your group of grad students a center than to call them your group of grad students). And the Sigma Xi award appears to be very local, something that they give on a per-chapter (that is, per-university) basis rather than a national-level award, and has no sources independent of Johnston herself. So I don't see a basis for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG, and as pointed out by David Eppstein, they don't pass WP:SCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now as still questionably better for signs of solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with David Epstein's analysis. Nsk92 (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Sources are inadequate. Looks like WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Not much in the article beyond the CV information and the list of publications. Getting their articles published in academic journals is what researchers in general try to do. I myself at 34 can point to five academic articles that I have authored or co-authored, and I am nowhere near being notable. Unless we want to have every reasonably experienced and successful researcher deemed notable, the inclusion criteria need to be tighter, for example, if the research receives attention outside the academic field and the researcher becomes a subject of interest. Johnston has indeed been successful at publishing (getting several articles into prestigious journals such as those in the Physical Review series is quite impressive), but I cannot see that it brings notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue you raise is much discussed on Wikipedia. You might like to take a look at WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I feel like this debate would benefit from a relist in order to generate a clear consensus. st170e^talk 01:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 01:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sjakkalle. Insert CleverPhrase Here 00:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does her holding a named chair - Kathleen Johnston Joe D. Waggoner Professor of Physics http://www.phys.latech.edu/primary+links/faculty+and+staff indicate enough for WP:Prof 5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research? (Msrasnw (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

There are actually differences between named chair and named professor appointments. If something is titled "named chair", its definitely a chair, but if someone is called a named professor, it may or may not be a chaired appointment, depending on the details. For a sufficiently important named chair appointment, at the time when it is made there is usually a news release by the university or the college or at least the department involved where one can look up the details about the position. If such a news release is absent and the department does not have a subpage anywhere at its website explaining anything about the nature of the named professorship or mentioning it as a particular honor, that does send a signal that the department is not trading the designation very seriously. Nsk92 (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - holding a named professorship at a major research university seems to me to be applicable: Kathleen Johnston is the Joe D. Waggoner Professor of Physics at Louisiana Tech University. I could not find evidence of the distinctions made by Nsk92 in our WP:Prof guidelines (Msrasnw (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

The college itself makes that distinction explicit in this case. See Endowed Professorships and Chairs list and Louisiana Tech. It lists a number of named professorships (including that of Kathleen Johnston), and five named chairs. So in the formal sense WP:PROF#C5 does not apply in this case, because her position is definitely not a named chair, and WP:PROF#C5 explicitly uses the wording "named chair". Nsk92 (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment hough they may have different titles, I am not aware of any difference in meaning between an endowed professorship, a named professorship, an endowed chair, and a named chair. Nsk92, have you any reference for tha distinction , either specific to LSU or, more important, in general? DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly something that is not often discussed and the practices aren't uniform. In general, in my experience (and here, I must freely admit that I am relying on personal knowledge, particularly from that in my own university and serving on various committees here, rather than on published sources), many schools now do make a significant distinction between a named chair and a named professorship. For schools that do make such a distinction explicit, named chairs are more prestigious and harder to obtain and also command substantially higher salaries (often by a factor of 1.5-2) than named professorships. That appears to be the case for Louisiana Tech University. They have 44 named professorships and 5 named chairs, and the two are clearly listed in separate categories. Other examples of universities that make such a distinction explicit include University of Texas at Austin and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In both cases there is a clearly delineated two-tier system of named permanent appointments, with endowed chairs being significantly higher (at least in the case of Illinois the salaries are publicly available and one can check what they are to see the difference). Similarly, Indiana University makes a clear distinction between named chairs and named professorships, as explained here [42] You can see, in particular, that there the minimum size of endowment required for a named professorship is $500,000, while for a named chair it is $1,500,000. In my experience that is typical for the schools that distinguish between the two types of positions, and that's why, in particular, at those schools you see a lot fewer named chairs than named professors. But that's what also makes the named chair positions at such schools much more selective and prestigious than named professorships. There are other universities where the terminology is used more freely and one usually needs to look at the announcement of a particular position to figure out the details. E.g. at the University of Michigan the seem to only use named professorships as titles for endowed positions, which are always or at least frequently termed chairs in their actual descriptions, e.g. here [43]. I think many of the older universities do the same, and the practices are not very uniform. One really does need to look at the details. But at the institutions that do have a clearly delineated two-tier system for named positions (such as Louisiana Tech University), there is a big gap in the minimum expectations, in terms of notability and distinction, from the named professor holder and the named chair holder. Since we are using WP:PROF#C5 as a shortcut, that is, as a way to pass WP:PROF with no further questions asked and no additional evidence of notability required, in my opinion we should not use these lesser named positions, in those places where the named chair appointment is clearly above them, as a way of satisfying WP:PROF#C5. They can, of course, still be uses as a way of partially satisfying WP:PROF#C1. Nsk92 (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to Seraphimblade: I started typing my response above to DGG, then got interrupted, then came back some time later, finished the edit and saved it. I did not realize that in the meantime you had put a "close in progress" note at the top. Anyway, please feel free to disregard my long reply to DGG above as it was added in the post-closing period. Nsk92 (talk) 00:39, 13 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 16:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denny AJD[edit]

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

Non-notable living person with no sources. Too old for WP:BLPPROD (article was created on 28 February 2007). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing at all actually convincing of any independent notability, would've nearly speedied too if not for the apparent award (which is not convincing for notability). SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no information I could find online to establish notability of the subject. News brings up nothing at all. Bilbo Baggins (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found a news article that mention him in relation to comments he made on facebook about a terrorist attack [44] but it's not significant coverage. There doesn't seem to be any reliable sources discussing him as a drummer or the award. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:46, 3 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 05:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intellinote[edit]

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

This is still so questionable for the applicable notability and my searches are only finding a few links at News but PR is also listed there, there's simply nothing convincing to suggest better notability. The best I found at News was onyl a 2014 Forbes article with only mentioning them, and not actually being in-depth coverage solely or largely about them. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - PCWorld reference is sufficient for notability. Fieari (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Broadsoft think they are significant.--Socnet (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – a single reliable source is insufficient to establish notability. SST flyer 02:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Except the PCMag note everything else seems like routine/PR coverage of funding, the usual start up spam cruft. With only one good refs, this fails the multiple good refs requirement. WP:TOOSOON, maybe. If this becomes popular and gets more coverage outside funding, it can be recreated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that the two Keep votes are not suggesting anything else different than I myself had said by said that the only best sourcing was the said news sources included, nothing else at all convincing thus still not enhancingly better or otherwise acceptable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 10 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. KTC (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Choking On Air[edit]

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

Article is about a non-notable band. Fails the requirements of WP:Band. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing currently convincing and my searches have also found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even aside from the obvious sourcing issues (Facebook is not a reliable source!) in the article, I cannot find any comprehensive coverage to support notability. All the coverage I see is either passing mentions, self-authored, from unreliable sources (ie: facebook/soundcloud/etc.), or simply event announcements. They're just not ready yet. Waggie (talk) 03:19, 10 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. Merge / redirect to be discussed on article TalkPage. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Soltysik presidential campaign, 2016[edit]

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

Page is not notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghoul flesh (talk • contribs) 02:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep (creator). There is no rationale for deleting the article. Moreover, the campaign has been covered in multiple, independent news outlets, including major newspapers and mainstream television. Obviously passes WP:GNG--TM 14:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mimi Soltysik#2016 presidential campaign. I agree that it passes WP:GNG, marginally at least, but there simply isn't enough content at this point to merit a standalone article. The article currently of about half a dozen sentences and 3 very short paragraphs, and virtually duplicates the content of the section I propose redirecting to. No prejudice against re-creation if more more substantive information should follow, but until then this is mere redundancy.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Dcm8991 and no prejudice against recreation if more content is developed. I concur that the topic meets GNG. Royal broil 00:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I have the time, I am going to dig deeper into the content and expand the article. Since there seems to be a consensus that it meets GNG, we should just place an expand tag on it, not merge/rediӖrect.--TM 11:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about userfying the content while you work on the expansion, and in the meantime redirecting as suggested above?--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - not needed until there is more content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ddcm8991. Splitting the information about Soltysik's campaign from his main article doesn't provide significant benefit to readers. Neither of the articles is long. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article about the subject, to Mimi Soltysik § 2016 presidential campaign. This will improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.195.40 (talk) 23:23, 8 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. Sandstein 16:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death Valley ecoregion[edit]

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

The existence of this article seems to be based on a misinterpretation of a source. The source of the article is "Freshwater ecoregions of North America" from the WWF, but the article's contents claims that it is a terrestrial ecoregion. There is no WWF terrestrial ecoregion named "Death Valley": Death Valley is part of the Mojave desert ecoregion.

The article is essentially unrescuable. It should be deleted. —hike395 (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My initial thought was "Keep" but based on nominator's explanation this was a "misinterpretation of a source" it seems delete is appropriate. BlueSalix (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The explanation was pretty devastating and convinced me too, but it was wrong. The WWF does define the Desert Valley ecoregion, starting on page 177 of the source (try [this search within the source. --do ncr am 19:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can show that the nominator is wrong. Misrepresentation of the only source means WP:TNT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator is wrong: Desert Valley ecoregion is defined from page 177 on in the source. --do ncr am 19:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator knew about page 177, see below. —hike395 (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Mojave Desert ecoregion (currently a redlink), and develop there. So there was a mistake in interpretation. But the article is attempting also to describe the Mojave Desert ecoregion, and there is need for such an article, and this can be moved and developed at that title. Mojave Desert is more limited and its article does not define the presumably larger ecoregion, and the deletion nomination here seems to me to imply that the Mohave Desert ecoregion is notable. In fact the term "Mojave Desert ecoregion" appears in (at least) the following Wikipedia articles: Ecology of California#Mediterranean ecoregions, Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Encelia actoni, Coxcomb Mountains, Carpenter Canyon, and Nellis Air Force Base Complex. The article should define what additional areas besides Mohave Desert proper are included in the ecoregion, and what are the ecoregion's characteristics, etc. --doncram 18:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because the nomination is wrong. Death Valley ecoregion is in fact defined from page 177 on in the source given in the article. I found it at [this URL, after searching within the book. Note you might not be able to get to page 177 due to limits on pageviews, which I think are randomly applied. I suggest the article could be expanded further to define the overlapping "Mohave Desert ecoregion" term which is already discussed somewhat in the article. There are various definitions, all of which can/should be explained. --do ncr am 19:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was aware of page 177 when I made the nomination. Notice that page 177 describes a freshwater ecoregion of lakes and rivers (and the flora/fauna within them), while the article describes a terrestrial ecoregion of land. Having this article is very confusing for our readers and editors -- your original comments assumed it was a terrestrial ecoregion, also. If we moved this article to Death Valley freshwater ecoregion (a more correct title for the concept), then the article would have to be restarted from scratch, because the contents of the article has no overlap with the concept described on page 177 of the reference. I don't see that there is anything worthwhile to keep. (If you'd like to start Death Valley freshwater ecoregion, based on this reference and others, please feel free.) —hike395 (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As fails verification by the claimed sources: par excellence. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:19, 11 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. KTC (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selva Pankaj[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. No significant coverage online from WP:RS. Original could have been speedied G11, but I removed the world of the marketing. Speedy A7 declined by reviewing admini. Spammy article on his company by same editor already speedied A7. OnionRing (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any in-depth, reliable coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no apparent notability. Mannanan51 (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found this [45] as the only secondary source about him. The entire article is sourced to primary and non-independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:36, 4 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. KTC (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manvitha Harish[edit]

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

Contested prod-non notable actress with only one role so far. Wgolf (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and this frankly should've been deleted as PROD but because I imagine we may need G4 for the future, delete as there's nothing convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was put up as a prod-but it was removed by the page creator right after I put it up! Wgolf (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one film that just might count for a requirement that needs two films, nothing else at all. She does not pass notability at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sajid Yahiya[edit]

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

Notability and sources Anoop 20:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps as I'm finding several links at News and WP:INADFD, but comparing it to his works, there's nothing convincingly better....that is, unless anyone else can finding something else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 20:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is notable as of WP:NACTOR, you can read more about him at ^[1], and on ^[2] it states 'He has acted in nearly 18 movies which include films like Bangalore days, Pakida etc', and on ^[3] it clearly states Sajid Yahiya has done noted roles in 'Bangalore Days' and 'Pakida'. Also via WP:INADFD you can find lot of links stating the directional debut and about his movies.JackTracker (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://archives.deccanchronicle.com/130927/entertainment-mollywood/article/enthralled-cinema
^ http://www.filmibeat.com/malayalam/news/2016/interesting-facts-about-idi-220895.html
^ http://www.nowrunning.com/pranav-mohanlal-to-lead-in-inspector-dawood-ibrahim/106847/story.htm

Keep as sources have been found above, the deccan chronicle article is significant coverage,as is the hindu article already in the article, passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not clear that the Bangalore Days or Pakida roles are more than minor ones, and the NR source appears of questionable reliability. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Relay FM. What to merge where to is for editors to figure out. Sandstein 16:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cortex(podcast)[edit]

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

The two hosts of this podcast are obviously notable (CGP Grey in particular), but it doesn't seem to be independently notable of the two hosts. Searching mostly result only in promotional material, brief mentions in articles, or articles using the podcast's episodes as sources. I couldn't really find much significant coverage about the podcast itself. I would also support a redirect, but any potential redirect target would have to be discussed (it does not help that the article title lacks a space). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Per Wikipedia:Notability (web)#No inherited notability, and also after some searching, the podcast does not have much notability on its own, and should be merged into Relay FM, Myke Hurley or CGP Grey. --Emphrase 15:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into CGP Grey, the podcast itself is non notable. Sro23 (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not into Relay FM or Myke Hurley? — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 16:10, 11 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 08:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahil[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this is WP:NOTABLE Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:09, 3 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 08:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LibrePlan[edit]

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

My searches found nothing better at all aside from 2 links from the past 6 months at News, nothing else convincing at all including for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:08, 3 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 08:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doolphy[edit]

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

There's nothing at all imaginably better for the applicable notability and my searches have found nothing better, none of the listed sources are actually solidly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 3 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. WP:SOFTDELETE KTC (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Hannan[edit]

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

I nearly PRODed too but it may have been removed because of his works being used for films, my searches have simply found nothing better than this though and that's not satisfying any applicable notability thus there's simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Vincent Clarkson. The withdrawal is moot since there's a delete !vote, but the WP:BOLD redirect is fine. No need to drag this out further. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Davis[edit]

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

The subject of the article is an alter-ego of another character (Vincent Clarkson) from the same show. All the information about her has already been added to the main page for the character and there isn't a strong enough reason to have an independent page. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" due to lack of activity. I will just use a redirect for the page instead. Aoba47 (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to !vote Merge but it appears there's nothing unique to merge over to the original article. BlueSalix (talk) 03:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:06, 3 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. Uncontested. Sandstein 16:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Munkareen-e-Haq[edit]

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

Contested PROD - the article still shows no indication of notability and there are no sources bonadea contributions talk 15:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not notable. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:06, 3 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. KTC (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abdrianahoabu[edit]

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

I couildn't verify it meets WP:NOTABILITY, but I hope someone can prove me wrong. I found it on many WP mirror sites and Google books based on WP articles, but not rs. Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 19:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 19:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. Without reliable sources there's nothing we can do. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Unverifiable; zero reliable sources found. Fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like copyvio of http://pantheon.org/articles/a/abdrianahoabu.html too, which was removed from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abdrianahoabu&oldid=260725383 because it was unreliable, and is now blacklisted. Triple delete ! Aoziwe (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Iridescent, CSD A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mata Sabitra Saru Sharma Aacharya[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that the astrologer meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Using AfD rather than prod as always difficult to judge when sources are less likely to be in English. Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 18:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Dan arndt (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we require a lot better sources to establish the notability of astrologers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing at all convincing, I believed I planned to comment sooner and this is certainly deletion material by all means. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 9 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. WP:SOFTDELETE KTC (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seb Adeniran-Olule[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 19:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 19:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable Rugby player who's death hasn't received enough coverage to pass GNG Seasider91 (talk) 13:30, 3 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 08:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eldon Howard[edit]

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

Nothing seemingly suggesting better for WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG, my searches have found nothing better than links at Books but certainly nothing solidly in-depth to suggest the needed notability improvements. It's also noting that this article has barely changes since starting in December 2011 when Kudpung tagged it. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Potential merge target is The Danzigers, which should be renamed Danzinger Productions. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:02, 3 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. WP:SOFTDELETE KTC (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Runtime Intelligence Service[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, this lacks sufficient coverage besides press releases and advertising. GAB^gab 23:04, 3 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. with no discrimination against a merge/redirect discussion on its talk page. J04n(talk page) 19:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Ambassadors to Algeria[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. none of the sources establish that the list or indeed the role of ambassador is notable. The sources merely confirm someone held the role, and most of them relate to the non resident ambassador in Paris. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly surpasses notability guidelines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please explain how. as admin @Coffee: notes your arguments for keep are vague and without evidence. LibStar (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect- There is no such thing as inherent notability and the sources do not come anywhere near establishing it for this article. Furthermore, there are something like 200 independent nations on Earth so are we going to have 40,000 of these cookie-cutter articles for every possible combination? All that would be required is a note at Australian Ambassador to France (which probably is a notable topic) that they're the same person. Reyk _YO! 07:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit of an aside, if we can have an article for an asteroid which will never grow, why cannot we have an article for every country's diplomatic postings. At 40,000 there will be less than the eventual number of asteroid articles / minor planets and other unremarkable astronomical bodies, already about 500 list articles, and infinitely more useful. Aoziwe (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep the scope of this role is international and it has received significant independent coverage, in the form of announcement of appointments in The Canberra Times. Given that the article is a 'list of Ambassadors to Algeria' of course the sources confirm who held the role. Further, notability is not temporary and the more recent sources are about the ambassador to Algeria (who is also resident ambassador to France, etc.). Clare. (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent sources mention Algeria very briefly. Notability is not temporary is irrelevant. I'd argue this list was never notable. LibStar (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge info. As per the AFD discussion on the Australian Ambassadors to Kazakhstan page, this info could easily be placed on the List of Australian Ambassadors to France page, which will strengthen that page and not lose anything worth saying about this subject, of which there appears to be little.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been done.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing particularly outstanding how and why this can be its own article, it can simply be mentioned at the other article. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Declaration - I am Australian - but have no specific interest in this - I was random patrolling old open AFDs) The article's content has the same intrinsic notability, as many others, including for example List of Australian ambassadors to France, and cannot be sensibly merged to that article because (as far as I can tell) the diplomatic posts have not always overlapped. It looks like someone has already started this good faith but I suggest too soon merge ? @Siegfried Nugent: Where has the Cairo period gone in the merge ? If merged it should go into the Egypt list but then there is no way of finding all the diplomatic postings to Algeria ? Aoziwe (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how 'intrinsic notability' is a policy-minded reason for keeping. Nor is the absence of a single period held by Cairo a reason for keeping (i have now added it to the French Embassy page). And the notability of this post, now closed, is clearly not on the same level as other postings. Simply put, a 24 year old posting with little independent coverage is not notable enough to warrant a page when the information can be put and linked elswhere.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 03:27, 12 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. KTC (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John MacFarlane (businessman)[edit]

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

My searches have found nothing better than two mentions and there's nothing at all for an actually solidly independently notable article and I would not see the benefits of simply replacing with a link to the company instead as I see nothing to actually convince keeping. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:ANYBIO Jbh ^Talk 13:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businesman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 7 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. J04n(talk page) 13:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Super Deluxe[edit]

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

No substantive refs for notability at all. Sources tell us that the domain name is registered and that the company exists but nothing else. A search throws out a few items such as this but nothing at all substantive appears. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KEEP The Super Deluxe page is verified, please remove the "considered for deletion" notice as soon as possible. Check below for verifiable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperDeluxeBloom (talk • contribs) 23:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Substantive Verifiable Sources:

http://www.superdeluxe.com/

https://www.facebook.com/superdeluxevideo/

https://www.youtube.com/c/superdeluxe

https://vimeo.com/superdeluxevideo

http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/turner-resurrects-digital-content-venture-super-deluxe-exclusive-1201600066/

http://time.com/4240298/straight-outta-compton-trailer-oscars/

https://www.oxygen.com/very-real/this-boss-ass-btch-cartoon-celebrates-empowered-ladies

http://www.papermag.com/kanye-west-ellen-appearance-super-deluxe-1815857214.html

http://www.afterellen.com/people/477419-jen-tullock-hannah-pearl-utt-disengaged — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperDeluxeBloom (talk • contribs) 22:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC) — SuperDeluxeBloom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. One of the links in the mess posted above me here goes to a different Variety article about Super Deluxe from last October that says that it's the primary hub for primarily- or only-online content from Turner Broadcasting. Any such branch of Turner would probably be notable without question if it were a television network or a magazine or something, and I'm not seeing why this is different. Although since the Variety piece also says that this project doesn't have a lot of attention right now, I wouldn't get upset to see this article folded into Turner Broadcasting System... RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

WP:KEEP: Based on the articles published by Variety, their Facebook page and their YouTube channel, the information in the article is valid.

http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/turner-resurrects-digital-content-venture-super-deluxe-exclusive-1201600066/

http://www.superdeluxe.com/

https://www.facebook.com/superdeluxevideo/

https://www.youtube.com/c/superdeluxe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Losangelesfan03 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC) — Losangelesfan03 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - please read WP:GNG before coming here with comments. Facebook and YouTube and all such social or vanity sources are not acceptable as references on Wikipedia. This is a discussion about notability and not how many user-names you can invent in order to comment here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's obviously newly founded and there's nothing at all here for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer – See WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Some reliable sources that provide significant coverage are listed below. Sometimes the default "find sources" links atop AFD discussions do not provide much coverage; sources can often be found by customizing search terms a bit and not relying only on Google. See also: Criticism of Google § Possible misuse of search results. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Wallenstein, Andrew (October 30, 2006). "Super site for Turner". The Hollywood Reporter.
Wallenstein, Andrew (October 6, 2015). "Turner Reboots Digital Content Venture Super Deluxe (Exclusive)". Variety.
Roettgers, Janko (March 1, 2016). "Turner's Super Deluxe Is Building a Video and Gif Aggregation Site (Exclusive)". Variety.
Mahan, Colin (October 30, 2006). "Turner goes Super Deluxe". TV.com.

Comment - That's all still only coverage to suggest it has gotten said coverage now, but nothing yet actually suggesting the solid independent notability for its own article, the other alternative would be to move and link to Turner Broadcasting System...thus my "independent notability" notation. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources linked by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) from The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and TV.com provide significant coverage about the subject. Here are two more sources I found:
1. "TBS to launch 'Net comedy outlet next year". United Press International. 2006-10-30. Archived from the original on 2016-06-04. Retrieved 2016-06-04.
2. "Turner site to offer TV-quality comedy". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 2006-10-31. Archived from the original on 2016-06-04. Retrieved 2016-06-04.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Super Deluxe to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
I think there is enough coverage of the subject to justify a separate article from Turner Broadcasting System.
Cunard (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Super Deluxe is notable, especially with their recent Donald Trump related videos.

Additional Links:

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/a-political-satirist-for-the-internet-election
https://www.vice.com/read/vic-berger-iv-is-vines-strangest-political-satirist

Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References and notability now established by other, non SPA, editors. Aoziwe (talk) 13:05, 12 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) 07:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Holmes[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a collegiate basketball player with no strong claim to passing WP:NBASKETBALL: notability is not granted in that sport until a person makes a professional league, and the strongest claim of "more notable than the norm for the collegiate level" here is that he was the all-time points leader at his own high school (and ranks 14th statewide.) But that's not nearly enough in and of itself to grant him automatic inclusion just because he exists, and the sourcing is nowhere near strong enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Delete, without creation against recreation in the future if he actually makes the big leagues or achieves something that would get him over WP:NCOLLATH for more than just existing as a collegiate-level athlete. Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think Mr. Holmes is notable yet, after Googling him – just some mentions in local media as a high school star. On a side note, I am actually a bit surprised WP:NBASKETBALL does not mention NCAA Division I at all, even for players who received All-American honors, the John Wooden award, or the Naismith or similar awards. Perhaps they all pass WP:GNG easily, so there is no need. MisterRandomized (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Side-note: I am stupid according to WP:NCOLLATH. MisterRandomized (talk)

Second side-note: I should mention that I personally don't believe the high school coverage rises above the level of routine per WP:NHSPHSATH. MisterRandomized (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as by far nothing at all for any minimal independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even most division I NCAA players are not notable, but division II?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:00, 5 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 05:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motor driver L293d[edit]

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

No sources to establish notability for this Motor driver integrated circuit. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Probably closely relying on a single source, though not a copyvio. I fail to see notability of this particular product by Texas Instruments. If there is some source out there that says it is the most sold of such drivers, then I would advocate redirecting this page and L293d to H bridge with a mention there; barring this, I recommend removal of this mention as well. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be the most used motor driver and massively popular for electronics projects around Arduino, Raspberry Pi etc. as well as for use in robots. There seem to be many reliable sources, for example: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50] and so on. DeVerm (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia is not a trade journal, a text book or an electronics catalog. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I do not see the consensus that highly popular electronic parts like this integrated circuit must be deleted from Wikipedia. There are thousands of them, are you going to send them all to AfD? DeVerm (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so sources can be evaluated. Nakon 04:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still nothing insinuating solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite the sources the article still screams of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, Unless DeVerm wants to rewrite it all then the best thing for this article is for it to be deleted and rewritten in a way that meets our polices & guidelines (If DeVerm did wanna rewrite it I'd go with Userfy but if they don't then delete & let someone else rewrite it). –Davey2010^Talk 17:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I do not share your point of view. I have seen many electronics catalogs and textbooks and this article is not that. It accurately describes the most notable motor controller IC and explains it's architecture and workings. There are no application notes nor examples, nothing that points to the textbook guideline at all. I know I'm just one lonely keep-vote but it's the only possible vote for me because I know it is correct. DeVerm (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I obviously disagree and 8 days later I still see no different ... It still IMHO screams of NOTTEXTBOOK, As I said if you were happy to userfy it and improve or rewrite it then great but ifnot then this is better off deleted and rewritten ... and I've just realised I'm repeating my !vote again

, –Davey2010^Talk 23:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is not clear from my previous comment? The article is good as it is. If you do not agree, then that doesn't mean it gets deleted, you can just !vote for delete and that's it. May be you can improve it with some edits instead of pointing at me when you see it so clear. DeVerm (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Miss Peru. J04n(talk page) 13:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Perú 1976[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Affair was not a pageant, as suggested, but a handpicking: Due to the restructuring that carried out the Miss Peru Organization, Rocío Lazcano former 1st Runner-Up of Miss Peru 1975 Pageant, was appointed to represent Peru in the Miss Universe 1976 [1] and Miss World 1976.[2] (What is also all the text of the article) The Banner talk 09:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is part of a series of year-specific articles on Peru's participation in the Big Four international competitions (similar series of year-specific articles exist for most participating nations). The fact that this year's representative was chosen in an unusual manner is itself something that can be discussed in the article. Also, these year-specific articles, when fully fleshed-out, typically relate what happened to the representative(s) at the international level of competition, and this is information that is relevant regardless of how the representative was selected. I also note that this is one of four Miss Peru articles that have been nominated under essentially the same weak rationale. The other three are Miss Perú 1973, Miss Perú 1977, and Miss Peru 2012. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You forgot 1965, 1963 and 1964! Those three article were - after discussion - redirected to Miss Peru. The Banner talk 19:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but those were nominated for a lack of sourcing, with little evidence that either you or the two discussants actually looked for them. In just a few minutes, I was able to find a reliable source for one of them (from a Spanish language source) and am confident that sources for the other two exist, as well. And, of course, your rationale in the instant case says nothing about sourcing, so there's no precedent here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Perú 1977 (2nd nomination). The Banner talk 18:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That one closed before I had a chance to alert the discussants as to your misleading suggestion of precedent. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If not independently notable, redirect to Miss Peru as a valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as there's nothing at all for any actual independent notability, now or later. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 3 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 08:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous Drives[edit]

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

Still questionable for WP:TVSHOW and WP:GNG, my searches have found nothing better and, although Speed TV is notable, there's nothing at all to suggest this particularly can be better improved. Notifying recent merging user Whpq. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Wade Wall[edit]

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

There's nothing to particularly suggest solid independent notability from those films, none of which had Jake Wade Wall himself listed for any awards, and my searches have found some news for other projects he had but nothing to suggest the needed notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable screewriter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hixson[edit]

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

My searches found nothing to suggest better for WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG, listed award is only one for college and university students so there's no automatic assumed notability and there's nothing else convincing apart from that. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Student Academy Awards#Winners#1990s#19th Annual Student Academy Awards – June 14, 1992. Wikipedia has an article on the Student Academy Awards, and Hixson's award-winning Five Female Persuasions is mentioned there. So a redirect would be more appropriate than deletion I think. It's also worth noting that, while I haven't done an extensive search for coverage of either of Hixson's films, I did happen across this LA Times article from 1993, which actually makes very brief mention of Hixson's other short film, Tennis. There very well may be more articles like this hiding away out there, somewhere, so if anyone wants to look around, then an article could possibly be created for Tennis. --Jpcase (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I've just noticed that Hixson is mentioned in a couple Washington Post articles that can be found on HighBeam. [51] Unfortunately, my HighBeam account has expired, so I'm not sure how much coverage these articles provide, but I've requested to renew my subscription. Will try to update with more information once I've had a chance to read the articles, unless someone else comes along with a HighBeam account and can fill us in sooner. --Jpcase (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so neither of the articles contain much info. The first [52] simply states that Five Female Persuasions was once screened at the Kennedy Center, as a part of a showcase for local films. That's certainly a high-profile venue, but we'd need a lot more to work with, if we wanted to build an article for either of these shorts. The other article [53] is of a similar nature, stating that the film was also screened at the Willard InterContinental Hotel, as a part of the CINE Golden Eagle Awards. So a redirect will probably still be the best way to go, at least for now. --Jpcase (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, per WP:SOFTDELETE--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buffett Early Childhood Fund[edit]

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

Promotional article from the day it was created 3 years ago. Was tagged for speedy deletion right away which was declined with note to AfD this. No one has bothered. It remains as bad today as it was then. Citations are almost all to the program itself with no evidence of passing the WP:Golden rule. TNT, at least. Jytdog (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I think it just fails WP:GNG and WP:NONPROFIT. I don't even see in my searches multiple reliable sources independent of this organization with which to write a neutrally worded stub. It's almost hard to believe such an article survived three years virtually unchanged. MisterRandomized (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No opinions of any substance about why this might be notable. Sandstein 16:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

.host[edit]

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

Non-notable top-level domain. No independent sources towards notability. Written as an advertisement by the CEO of the company that owns the .host TLD as stated in previous talk page comments when the article was previously speedy deleted by me when the advertising was more blatant. I have since restored the talk page revisions for review during this AfD. See also Protld (talk · contribs), the original account that created the speedy deleted versions. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 05:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computer-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 05:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pure vandalism! The fact that the person involved has been creating multiple accounts to re-create the article should portray the lack of professionality from the involved parties. A domain under the name informations.host first added by the same people from ProTLD has been suspended by the official .HOST registrar Radix (DotHost Inc.) which is the registry sponsor. I have failed to find any documentation of ownership from this seemingly non-existent company. Since the creator involved is obviously in here for economical interest and even adding in forum boards such as "subnetweb" under the list of accredited registrars (which is false according to Radix). I suggest deletion of this entire article or edit out irrelevant information and correct information such as the registry being under IANA and not ProTLD. ProTLD is not a domain operator as far as I see. Dialupinternet (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC) — Dialupinternet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that this article should be deleted. It is probably non-notable, and is certainly spammy. Kiwi128 (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not agree that the .host article should be deleted, I do acknowledge that the person writing nonsense on this article should be prevented from doing so. As well, I have requested the take down of informations.host, and I received a response from Radix of which the domain was suspended as well as any associated domains. FlamesRunner (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just a generic TLD. We can write a single sentence about it at top-level domain or wherever. Stuff like .com has significant coverage in reliable sources, including detailed histories. I admit that I gave up a little quickly, but I didn't see anything like that for .host. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I've de-spammed the page, though the author seems to revert all such changes. What's left is a basic outline of a gTLD. In the past, TLDs were few, so articles made sense. Under the gTLD program, anyone can pretty much create their own TLD if they have the money and go through the process. Hmmmm..... www.crow? So I really don't see how this one is particularly notable, other than being a word that internet companies might find attractive. All the info here (minus spam) is also found at List of Internet top-level domains, so again, I see no compelling reason for this article. Crow^Caw 19:10, 5 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, clearly leaning keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Eckersley[edit]

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

Non-notable living person. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough sources, non-notable. FPTI (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - She's not very notable yet, so we should delete the page until she becomes more notable or add more content to the page --Pachisu124 (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she comes through as notable. She is a producer as well as actress and very notable in Australia. She is the producer of The Family Law and Glitch for starters. Karl Twist (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep just about squeaks through. ukexpat (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish keep not a glittering career (as yet?) but just enough substance to get it over the line. Has appeared in some TV shows that have been shown in other countries. Eagleash (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as producer of two notable Australian tv shows (having wiki articles) as well as acting career passes WP:Creative Atlantic306 (talk) 18:45, 7 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) 01:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Treating allergies/autoimmune diseases in humans by manipulating the microflora of the gut.[edit]

Scientific paper / essay (WP:NOTJOURNAL) content. Neither the scope of the article nor its content are within the scope of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia (WP:DEL14). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Clearly someone's personal essay. editorEهեইдအ😎 02:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTJOURNAL. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete bunch of WP:OR.. oy. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Apple Worldwide Developers Conference. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 03:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WWDC 2015[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The apple.com sources are unreliable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Needs third-party sources, which are not there now.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable without additional third party sources. FPTI (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added. Xender Lourdes (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Apple Worldwide Developers Conference, as the WWDC pages for all the other years do. Artw (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Apple Worldwide Developers Conference - No evidence of notability Fails GNG, No brainer really. –Davey2010^Talk 17:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Apple Worldwide Developers Conference. This particular conference is no more notable than the others which are all redirects, and any referenced, significant news from this conference could easily be incorporated (merged) into the more general article.Dialectric (talk) 06:32, 5 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.

[1] ttp://archives.deccanchronicle.com/130927/entertainment-mollywood/article/enthralled-cinema

[2] ttp://www.filmibeat.com/malayalam/news/2016/interesting-facts-about-idi-220895.html

[3] ttp://www.nowrunning.com/pranav-mohanlal-to-lead-in-inspector-dawood-ibrahim/106847/story.htm

[1]

[2]

[3]