Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 June	9 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky Fingers (band)[edit]

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

Not notable and lacks reliable sources Synergism1 (talk) 23:32, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely notable and there are plenty of reliable sources (in addition to their 2 hit albums). Try Google. I note that the nominator's only contributions to Wikipedia are edits relating to this AfD. --Michig (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Two chart albums. This was not a high-quality nomination - David Gerard (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep satisfies WP:NMUSIC, in that the band has released two charting albums. Would strongly suggest the nominator (whose sole edits appear to be just the nomination of this article for deletion) checks what is considered notable before considering AfDs in the future. Dan arndt (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two charting albums, satisfies WP:NMUSIC.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NMUSIC. Star Islington (talk) 14:55, 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 redirect to Constitution Party (United States)#Affiliated organizations. (non-admin closure) SST flyer at 08:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of state Constitution Parties[edit]

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

Every single one of the links in this article redirect back to the main Constitution Party (United States) article. This article has been useless since the articles of the individual state chapters of the U.S. CP were deleted. 1990'sguy (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Per nom's well articulated reasons. Pointless to have a list where all the items in the list point to the same article. Fieari (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Constitution Party (United States)#Affiliated organizations, where the list is already contained and with much more information about these state parties. This could have (and per policy at WP:ATD should have) been done prior to resorting to AFD. Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Alabama for the history of why these are all redirects. postdlf (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. but do not redirect. I don't see the point of it. The redirects from the state parties might as well go directly to the main article. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG: It's a plausible search term, so it should redirect to that section. The state affiliates do redirect to that section for the most part, and this should too. Why are you against a redirect? Smartyllama (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Postdlf. Most of the state affiliates redirect to that section, and this is a plausible search term for someone looking for the information contained in that section. There's really no reason not to do it, and Redirects are cheap. Smartyllama (talk) 19:00, 15 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 Miss 50 plus Germany. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Selke[edit]

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

Notability claimed is from winning one minor pageant - that may make it WP:1E, but otherwise, while there is no specific notability guidelines for beauty pageant winners, see this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants#Notability guidelines or WP:NMODEL. Further, clearly this person does not meet WP:GNG. Melcous (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage for GNG. Already mentioned in Miss 50 plus Germany. Gab4gab (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete won a pageant that does not come close to making winners notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss 50 plus Germany. A valid search term. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:14, 15 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. Thanks everyone who participated. Please keep all responses to closure civil. If you wish to contest the results, please visit deletion review. Missvain (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Wache[edit]

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

Notability claimed is from winning one minor pageant - that may make it WP:1E, but otherwise, while there is no specific notability guidelines for beauty pageant winners, see this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants#Notability guidelines or WP:NMODEL. Further, clearly this person does not meet WP:GNG. Melcous (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The pageant is no where near major enough to make the winner notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage for GNG. Already listed in Miss 50 plus Germany with the correct years. Gab4gab (talk) 23:31, 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. Thanks everyone who participated. Please keep all responses to closure civil. If you wish to contest the results, please visit deletion review. Missvain (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gary McLeod[edit]

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

This article does not seem notable. It is about a person who ran unsuccessfully ran for Congress, never exceeding more than 34% of the vote. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. 1990'sguy (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed candidates for the US house are not notable for such, and that is his only claim to notability at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 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. Thanks everyone who participated. Please keep all responses to closure civil. If you wish to contest the results, please visit deletion review. Missvain (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Masterson[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:14, 9 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) 14:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing seems to have changed from the first time it was deleted. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the previous article was deleted as it failed the relevant criteria, this new article is no improvement Spiderone 10:53, 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. Thanks everyone who participated. Please keep all responses to closure civil. If you wish to contest the results, please consider improving the article first prior to renominating or challenging this decision. Thank you. Missvain (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of the Constitution Party (United States)[edit]

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

This article is definitely well sourced, but it is very out of date, incomplete, and most importantly, the subjects of this article are not notable. Most of the CP candidates received much less than 5% of the vote, and most don't even have their own articles. Also, the "current" elected officials (if it is even up-to-date) do not have their own articles. Fails WP:GNG. 1990'sguy (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, update and improve. The topic is notable and well-sourced. Per WP:ARTN, "Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability", which I believe speaks to the problems of incomplete or out of date material.--TM 02:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, update, and improve. To 1990sguy's point, if "notability" of 3rd party candidates were a requirement, we wouldn't cover 3rd parties at all. But this article isn't about them, it's about the electoral history of the party, and in that kind of list context the individual notability is irrelevant. Namiba nails it. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But limit to officials who actually were elected to office, whether current or former. A list of every candidate the Party ever ran for any office would be nearly impossible to complete and very unwieldy in length. Third party candidates in the US being elected to office is unusual enough that a list of them could be notable, but an indiscriminate list of everyone the Party ever ran is not. Smartyllama (talk) 18:55, 15 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. Thanks everyone who participated. Please keep all responses to closure civil. If you wish to contest the results, please visit deletion review. Missvain (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bluebird Inc.[edit]

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

Delete, fails WP:NCORP. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincing at all for basic notability, I would've also considered speedy as this basically has nothing salvageable at all. SwisterTwister talk 00:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:49, 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. Nakon 23:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Langhamer[edit]

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

fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: appears to pass WP:NHOCKEY, as he has played more than 90 games as a goaltender in the Western Hockey League. I added some news sources covering the Coyotes recently putting him as second goalie, after recalling him from the Falcons. Delta13C (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he passes NHOCKEY yet, because Western Hockey League is a junior team. It is only a higher league such as the AHL where we presume notability for playing a certain number of games. That said, he has been called up to the NHL even though he hasn't played a game. To my mind, sevring as a dressed backup goalie in a regular season or playoff game - which he has - should be adequate to retain the article, even though it doesn't technically pass NHOCKEY, since unlike other positions where all dressed players typically get into the game, the backup goalie typically does not. But getting called up for a meaningful game indicates a certain level of accomplishment - arguably beyond merely playing a certain number of AHL games - and also generates interest in the player. 1Rlendog (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Playing the WHL means nothing as he never earned any honours. He has played 19 games in the AHL well short of the 90 needed for his position. Unfortunately being a backup goaltender in an NHL game means nothing as it is only considered notable when they play in the game; otherwise we would have to make articles for players who served as emergency backups. The only stories that exist about him (after a quick search) involve being called up to Arizona and signing his entry-level contract, that is hardly enough for an article to exist at this time. Deadman137 (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I echo the above and there's simply nothing else otherwise convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Certainly doesn't pass NHOCKEY, as the level at which the subject has played (major junior) would require him to meet criterion #4: being a First Team All-Star. He wasn't one. None of the sources in the article go beyond casual mentions or the sort of routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE as supporting notability. Ravenswing 18:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 22:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Hache[edit]

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

fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still nothing at all for any solid independent notability, the available information insinuates nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:22, 16 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. The list was shown to be notable. (non-admin closure) Daniel kenneth (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potions in Harry Potter[edit]

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

Delete: A prior AfD from 2007 resulted in this page being deleted for failing WP:PLOT, WP:WAF and WP:FICT among other things. A year ago, it was recreated [1], apparently to fix broken links (which, honestly, isn't a valid reason to override an AfD).

Multiple discussions occurred regarding this article:

June 2015: A discussion occurred here regarding the suitability of the article. Assurances were given that it would be improved. No changes that have happened to the article since have addressed the serious shortcomings of this article.
November 2015: I started a discussion indicating I intended to AfD this article. No improvement to the article occurred. The only suggestion that came from it was to merge the content back to Magical objects in Harry Potter where it came from in the first place. I noted the problem wasn't the location, but the content itself.
April 2016: I started a discussion at the Harry Potter task force, noting my intent to place this article for AfD. Nobody...nobody...responded.
April 2016: I contacted every person who was active on the project who had ever edited the article (example), a total of 17 people, including the person who had recreated this article. What few responses I got all indicated they felt the article should be deleted.

At no time in any of these discussions has anyone done anything to address the failings of this article. Since my last notice, two months ago, of intent to AfD this article the only changes that have occurred are cosmetic/copy editing (see changes).

The simple reality is there is no out-of-universe notability regarding potions in the Harry Potter universe. As is, the only reference we have of any kind supports the Potions section at Magic_in_Harry_Potter#Potions. While the text of this article is not identical to what was deleted back in 2007, and thus the article could not be speedy deleted under WP:G4, it's a near case. All the reasons for deletion voiced in the first AfD still apply nine years later. Nine years later and still nobody will lift a finger to rewrite it.

Lastly, merging is not an option. We already have a potions section at Magic_in_Harry_Potter#Potions. The content here is the problem; it is nothing more than WP:FANCRUFT, and inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Merging it just moves the problem elsewhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge somewhere, even if it's only brief one-sentence synopses of each potion. I created the current version of the article because I thought it was disgusting that we had so many broken links and redirects in such a popular topic area. I believe Wikipedia should have at least basic descriptions of these potions ... why have descriptions of every other element in the Harry Potter universe except them? Also, the Magic in Harry Potter#Potions section is about the subject at Hogwarts, not the potions themselves ... otherwise I would agree that putting relevant content there would be a good idea. Graham87 16:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping isn't an option. The article as is fails everything Wikipedia is supposed to be. If there were some hope to improve it, I could see that. But such hope is vacuous; in nine years, nothing has happened to change their notability. As to keeping mentions of individual potions; why? From WP:PLOT: "Summary-only descriptions of works". Exhaustive lists of every potion in the universe is hardly a "summary". As to other elements of the universe containing such; that's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and carries no water. I've no problem with expanding Magic_in_Harry_Potter#Potions with sourced commentary. But including a list isn't what we're about. That's appropriate for a Wikia, but not here. Lastly, keeping the article to prevent broken links is wrong. Fix the broken links. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also Graham, I'd like to note that you were involved in June 2015 discussion, and knew of the article's serious shortcomings from a year ago. You were involved in the November 2015 discussion, and were aware this was going to be placed for AfD and were reminded of the serious shortcomings. You were informed in April 2016 this would be placed for AfD in two months. Not that anyone is required to do anything on Wikipedia...but in a year's time, despite multiple reminders, you've done nothing to address the serious shortcomings of this article. Yet, you want it kept? None of your above keep vote addresses the serious failings this article has and why it should be kept despite those serious failings, nor does your keep vote try to make any case that it in fact doesn't fail those things. Come on. Give us _something_ to chew on? Anything? Bueller? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to fix the links was to give them something to point to again, which I did. Even I wouldn't mind if the "Potions of Harry Potter" article was redirected somewhere with actual content about, well, potions in Harry Potter, contrary to the situation that existed between the time of this edit on 3 December 2012 by Chaheel Riens and my edit on 4 June 2015. So if someone wanted to know what Felix Felicis was, as I did, they could easily get a basic description of it while following links on Wikipedia rather than being led on a wild goose chase as I (and anyone else who had viewed the article in the previous two and a half years) would have been. Note that the books are fine sources for basic descriptions in this case. Graham87 18:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. You can fix the links by removing them. You don't have bring an AfD'd article back to life to 'fix' it. That doesn't fix it. You just create a problem that was previously taken care of. So your 'fix' might have solved a problem for you, but re-created a problem the community already agreed to remove. As to MOS:BOOKPLOT; There's nothing wrong with using primary sources in limited circumstances. But, for an exhaustive list? Again, Wikia is appropriate for this, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; if you think going after Felix Felicis is a wild goose chase, then have it link to Magic in Harry Potter#Potions. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:Hammersoft and User:Graham87 are both right - and both wrong. The article in its present form originated, not from the article deleted in 2007 but from a Potions section in Magical objects in Harry Potter, present there from 2009 or before and removed from it for a definitional reason with which I would disagree ("potions are not magical objects") in 2012. This left links from other articles relating to a number of potions which had formerly been listed in the section now redirecting to an article which did not mention potions at all - a definitely undesirable situation, since it means that the links concerned were effectively useless for any reader using them. I fully sympathise with User:Graham87's reasons last year for attempting to remedy this by resurrecting the previous section as a free-standing article, but he should have realised that the lack of any explicit references, other than primary ones to the novels (and even those only to novels as a whole rather than specific pages or, at least, chapters), would automatically make it questionable on grounds of notability.

Lists like this one (and, indeed, Magical objects in Harry Potter) are a useful way to group together short explanations of recurrent plot elements which individually have little or no direct notability, but which in turn help to explain plot turns, or other aspects of the work in which they appear, which are notable. However, while this usefulness can mean that we tend not to insist on the notability of each of the listed elements taken separately, we still expect at least some significant secondary sourcing through the list taken as a whole (or, indeed, substantial subsections of it). I therefore also sympathise with User:Hammersoft's attempts to insist on it and, indeed, waiting without success for about a year for such sourcing before moving to get the article deleted. However, User:Hammersoft's alternatives for the inward links should this article be deleted all have problems: User:Graham87 still has a good point about the need for links to go to a relevant article, which User:Hammersoft's suggestion of Magic in Harry Potter#Potions basically isn't (it is about Potions as a subject at Hogwarts, not individual potions); and simply removing the links from the linking articles usually leaves terms like Felix Felicis either totally unexplained or with less explanation than the context needs. Adding an explanation of the delinked term or removing it altogether can in turn cause problems as (particularly if what matters are the effects of the potion rather than the potion itself) it can, respectively, either overemphasise or remove one part of a larger and more notable explanation.

Ideally, the answer is probably some kind of merger, most likely as a revised and better-sourced reinstatement of a Magical objects in Harry Potter#Potions section - but this probably still requires some secondary sourcing, though not as much as for a standalone article. Contrary to User:Hammersoft's assertions, there are available secondary sources about potions in the Harry Potter universe - for instance, this academic paper - to be found on a GBooks search (better done as Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL than with the full article title), though it may be quite a lengthy job to sift sufficient reliable ones from among the purely fannish ones. PWilkinson (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IF there are reasonable secondary sources, then add them. The assertion this hasn't happened in a year isn't accurate. We've been waiting nine years for reliable secondary sources, and nobody has come forward with anything. I never asserted this content is the same as 2007. I did assert it suffers from the same problems as 2007. Merging flat isn't an option with this content. As I've maintained all along, it doesn't matter where the content goes. The content is the problem, not WHERE it is. If someone wants to include a table with one line per potion in the main article with a very short description saying what the potion is supposed to do, fine. Beyond that, it's all fancruft and regurgitation of plot details. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PWilkinson: You hit the nail on the head here. If I could do the reinstatement of the potions again, I would've moved them to somewhere like Fictional universe of Harry Potter rather than creating the article again. Graham87 05:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. major plot element in major fiction. The individualones canbe sourced perfectly well from the books themselves. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That it's a "major plot element" is belied by the lack of secondary sources. It's not up to us to decide if it's major or not, but the secondary sources. The secondary sources have been absent for 9 years, both in this article and in the article from which this content was pulled, and in the prior iteration of this article. As to using primary sources, that's a non-starter. Primary sources should be used sparingly, not as the only basis for an article. I've been fighting for a year now to get somebody...anybody...to step forward to turn this into an encyclopedia article. Nobody has been willing to lift a finger to do so. For eight years prior to that, nobody lifted a finger to fix it either. The only thing that has happened is to add more fancruft. At what point do we decide it's not going to happen? Would you accept what I suggested above, that of having a table at Magic_in_Harry_Potter#Potions with a single line for each, and a bare description of what each is supposed to do? If not, why not? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a compromise as there's nothing at all for any future improvements but it's relevant enough to at least keep, not as its own article however. SwisterTwister talk 17:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Barring objections, I'm going to turn this into a redirect to Magic_in_Harry_Potter#Potions, and do as I suggested above; include a table with one line per potion in the main article with a very short description saying what the potion is supposed to do. @Graham87: @PWilkinson: @DGG: @SwisterTwister:, agreed? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. SwisterTwister talk 17:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purely from the standpoint of what aspects of potions are being discussed, I feel that Magical objects in Harry Potter might be a better article for the redirect and table. However, I don't feel like insisting on this point. PWilkinson (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As said above repeatedly, the section about potions in Magic in Harry Potter is about the Potions class at Hogwarts, not the potions themselves. I think it would be a much better idea to create a section for potions *themselves* at Fictional universe of Harry Potter and put the table there. Graham87 08:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, where I think is a bit less important than what. I could see an argument for placing the table as a subsection of Magic_in_Harry_Potter#Using_magic. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It'd work there, I guess, but then there could be two sections with the same title which isn't a good thing, especially for redirects. I think it'd fit better in the "Fictional universe ..." page because there are already foods, drinks, etc. there. Graham87 15:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If placed in the "Magic in Harry Potter article", I think that, to avoid confusion, we should create a new section for "Potion brewing" as a magical ability, to write a sourced paragraph for this kind of magic, and place the table with the potions next. Thoughts? --LoЯd ۞pεth 16:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the section titles being the same is an obstacle. I'm sure we can create unique names for each. For example, the existing section could be labeled as "Potions (class)" or "Potions (subject)" or some such. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both the above suggestions would work, too. Graham87 09:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the subject fails to meet notability outside the series. It is entirely description of fictional elements. If merging is considered as an option, it should be rewritten: instead of a list of cruft, it should be about "Potion brewing" or some similar title, discussing the ability of the characters to produce potions. --LoЯd ۞pεth 19:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
The subject passes the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Notability, which notes:
All fictional topics must meet the notability guidelines to warrant articles specifically about them. As mentioned earlier, the rule of thumb is that if the topic is sufficiently notable, secondary sources will be available and will ideally be included on article creation.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "potions in Harry Potter" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources
1. Stouffer, Tere (2007). The Complete Idiot's Guide to the World of Harry Potter. New York: Penguin Group. pp. 150–161. ISBN 1440636613. Retrieved 2016-06-18.
  The book notes on page 150:
  Common Draughts, Potions, and Antidotes
  The final section of this chapter lists the common potions you'll find in the wizarding world, most of which clean something, cure some ailment, or cause wizards to behave in ways they otherwise wouldn't. Each of the following sections describes the purpose of the potion, lists its ingredients (if known), and discusses any additional mythological, Biblical, or literary background.
  Here is a sample entry on page 152:
  Dr. Ubbly's Oblivious Unction
  To be "oblivious" is to be unaware, and "unction" refers to an oil or salve, usually a soothing or comforting one, used for religious or medicinal purposes. ("Unction" also refers to rubbing into or sprinkling oil onto the body; thus, Extreme Unction is the term used by the Catholic Church for the Anointing of the Sick, also called Last Rites.) Because we don't know the ingredients for this potion, nor do we know anything about Dr. Ubbly, we can only assume that it is a salve of some sort that's intended to make people oblivious to the world around them (and could, therefore, have a strong connection to—or even be the same potion as—a Confusing Concotion) or forget something uncomfortable or terrifying they've seen.
  One note, however: doctors don't exist in the wizarding world, so this potion may have originated in the Muggle world. "Healer Ubbly" would be more likely, if this were, indeed, a uniquely wizard potion. Ubbly, on the other hand, evokes a strong sense of a bubbly cauldron (ubbly-bubbly).
  Here is a second sample entry on page 152 and page 153:
  Confusing and Befuddlement Draught (also Confusing Concoction)
  A Confusing and Befuddlement Draught is meant to befuddle and, therefore, distract the user. This potion is likely used on Muggles who have seen possible wizard activities, but think of how a rather evil wizard could find it useful in other situations: pouring a smidgeon into his dad's nightcap just before he checks the clock to see how late he got home; sharing a little with a police officer as he or she is writing him a ticket or to a bank teller or store clerk who is counting out his change; slipping a little to a witness in a court case. A good wizard could easily go bad with powers such as these.
  Confusing potions aren't unique to the wizarding world. George Eliot wrote about a "confusing potion" in her 1876 novel, Daniel Deronda (her last). Long before that, Sophocles wrote that Athena tricked Ajax into confusing sheep with men—which is highly inconvenient during war-time! Key ingredients include lovage (historically used as a medicinal tea), scurvy-grass (once a treatment for scurvy or vitamin C deficiency), and sneezewort (a form of yarrow to which many people are allergic). See Chapter 10 for more on these ingredients, all of which you can grow in your backyard.
2. Boyle, Fionna (2004). A Muggle's Guide to the Wizarding World: Exploring the Harry Potter Universe. Toronto: ECW Press. pp. 192–195. ISBN 155022655X. Retrieved 2016-06-18.
  The book notes on pages 192–193:
  Potions
  Through a combination of theoretical and practical work, students learn about the preparation and effects of magical potions and substances. They also study poisons and antidotes, and learn about the attributes of different potion ingredients, from everday to the exotic. ...
  ...
  * Ageing Potion: Makes the drinker a little or a lot older, depending on how much is drunk.
  * Babbling Beverage: Presumably makes the drinker speak nonsense.
  * Baruffio's Brain Elixir: Presumably boosts brain power. It is sold as a black-market concentration and study aid for OWL and NEWT students.
  * bezoar (pronounced "bez-war"): Stone found in a goat's stomach that will save a person from most poisons.
  * Boil-curing potion: Contains crushed snake fangs, dried nettles, stewed horned slugs, and porcupine quills.
  * Confusing Concoction: Presumably befuddles the drinker.
  * Deflating Draught: It reduces objects that have been inflated back to their original size.
  * Draught of Living Death: Very powerful sleeping potion containing powdered root of asphodel and infusion of wormwood.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Secondary information notes: "Examples of useful information typically provided by secondary sources about the original work, or primary and secondary sources about information external to the work:".
This "information external to the work" requirement is clearly met by the first source, which says, "Each of the following sections describes the purpose of the potion, lists its ingredients (if known), and discusses any additional mythological, Biblical, or literary background."
Cunard (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cunard has thoroughly refuted the "where are the sources?!?" arguments above, to the extent that I would expect every delete !voter above to either revise or reaffirm their statements before being counted by the closing admin. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's really an argument for keeping a table, with one line per potion. After this closes (regardless of close), I'll be doing that per the discussion the rest of us have had above. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – meets WP:LISTN. Per a review of available sources, including those provided by Cunard above, the topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent, reliable sources. In addition to the sources posted above, I have added more below that discuss the topic as a group or set. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Stouffer, T. (2007). "Chapter 11: Round about the cauldron go: draughts and potions". The Complete Idiot's Guide to the World of Harry Potter. Complete Idiot's Guide to. Alpha Books. pp. 145–161. ISBN 978-1-59257-599-2. – An entire book chapter about the topic
The Ravenclaw Chronicles. pp. 73–77.
Harry Potter and the Classical World
The Ultimate Harry Potter and Philosophy
Harry Potter and the Bible (subscription required)
The Sorcerer's Companion
The Mirror
There's also coverage about groups that meet to create said potions: Ipswich Star, Argus Leader

Again, that's really an argument for keeping a table, with one line per potion. After this closes (regardless of close), I'll be doing that per the discussion the rest of us have had above. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Thanks everyone who participated. Please keep all responses to closure civil. If you wish to contest the results, please consider improving the article before renominating. Missvain (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Adler[edit]

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

Delete, fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:ANYBIO. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was created earlier today by a student editor who seems to have been working on it in their user space since 27 May. It seems premature and WP:BITEy to bring it to AfD rather than tag for notability etc. PamD 23:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Pam. This should never have been sent to AfD so fast, especially given the newbie-ness of its creator. But never mind. Could you, kosboot, and Boleyn take a look at the article, now that I have added more material and references, and let me know what you think? Voceditenore (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: I am dismayed by your response. WP:NPP's job is to scan through new content. It does not discriminate between articles made 10 seconds ago and articles made 10 days ago. It does not account for who the editor was nor does it operate by malice. The Page Curation tool includes buttons for deletion precisely because it anticipates material that meets deletion criteria. To accuse me of being BITEy is unwelcome. I was pitching in with NPP and the least you can do is AGF. If you like, tell me I should have searched more deeply per WP:BEFORE. Perhaps you ought to instead visit NPP and take up the issue there. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To support Chris Troutman, indeed I know someone who's been active in WP for over 10 years and is currently serving on ArbCom. His observation is that about 50% of new articles are deleted right away (i.e. within 24 hours) because they're misusing WP as a publicity machine rather than an encyclopedia. I believe that's what this minor composer was doing although others seem to be running to his dubious rescue. - kosboot (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kos, not that it makes any difference as to whether this article should be kept, but this was not an exercise in self-publicity. It was created by a student at the University of Washington fulfilling an assignment in a course entitled "Listening Outside the Box-Concert Music in the 21st Century". Had it been an autobiography, I probably wouldn't have put the effort into rescuing it. Voceditenore (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: now appears to be thoroughly notable.

It's not clear to me whether the original editor was doing this as a student assignment, but if so I hope the instructor has the wit to realise how much of the credit for the current state of the article is nothing to do with that student editor, who had merely listed a few refs at the end and made no serious attempt at formatting, referencing the content or wikilinking etc! Congratulations to Voceditenore and others who have upgraded this article in the past couple of days. PamD 17:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KimD UWT: Just pinging the instructor on the course on which the creating editor is enrolled, to draw their attention to this discussion. PamD 17:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with Chris Troutman. Not much evidence of notability beyond his campus. - kosboot (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not commenting on notability, but think as this was created less than a day before AfD, we need to make an extra effort to look for sources. At the very least, this should be reverted to the redirect it was created as, to Chris Adler. Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've seen on WP plenty of articles on characters of far less 'notability'. He's had performances in a number of leading venues, and a number of his pieces have been recorded. OK the article could do with some beefing up but that's not a reason to delete.--Smerus (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerus, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument in an AfD. The most applicable guidelines for Adler would be WP:PROF, WP:ENT, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. How do you feel he meets one of them? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Boleyn, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an opinion, not an official guideline. I give my opinions above - he's had performances, he's had recordings. Per contra (to look at the criteria submitted by the nominator), I think only a minute percentage of biographies on WP would meet the absurd standards of WP:ANYBIO. (I've edited articles accepted for GA that don't get there!) As regards WP:NMUSIC - WP:COMPOSER includes (in subsection 'Others' - "Composers and performers outside mass media traditions") a number of criteria that would seem to me to apply here, and which are sourced in the lead para of the article. That's my opinion - sorry if you don't like it, but I maintain my 'keep' position. Smerus (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've just re-written and referenced this. (I think this revised version is the one Smerus was talking about.) It still needs work—I put a lot of his stuff in the lead from which it should be moved eventually. Anyhow, his compositions have been broadcast both in the US and the UK (all referenced); one of his commissions was from Carnegie Hall for the Silk Road Project (referenced); another for the MATA Festival (with a glowing review in the New York Times [2]); his compositions appear on recordings by two notable labels (for the genre); described as a "virtuoso khaen player" and composer for the instrument in that instrument's entry in Continuum Encyclopedia of Popular Music of the World [3]; discussion of one of his piano works in an Italian book Musica per pianoforte negli Stati Uniti: Autori, opere, storia [4]; plus a feature on him in the San Diego Tribune [5]. He passes several of the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO and arguably WP:GNG as well. Voceditenore (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although many of the references make just a passing mention of Adler, they build a picture of a composer and performer whose works are notable. Crucially the two articles in the San Diego Union Tribune and the MIT alumni site go into sufficient depth to convince me that Adler as a person has come to the notice of third-party commentators - which is what we are looking for in judging notability. --RexxS (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I've commented, I hadn't voted as unsure. Looking at improved article, I agree with Voceditenore's comments above. Boleyn (talk) 16:12, 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 deleted G11 by Shirt58. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 13:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tata Capital[edit]

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

Delete, fails WP:NCORP. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does indeed fail WP:NCORP, the sources on the article are poor, and a cursory Google news search turns up nothing significant -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 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 delete. Thanks everyone who participated. Please keep all responses to closure civil. If you wish to contest the results, please visit deletion review. Missvain (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QASSIM ABDALKAREEM[edit]

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

As far as I can tell from Google caches (admins can probably confirm this) articles about the same guy have been speedy-deleted four times in the past under the title Qassim abdulkareem. I initially tagged this version with a BLPPROD tag but the author has now included six links. The problems is that four of them are in fact 404 errors. The remaining two are very short interviews in Arabic so I can't confirm that the guy interviewed is indeed QASSIM ABDALKAREEM but it's clear that they are not sufficiently detailed to form the basis of an article. The claim is that he plays for an Iraqi team (Al Nasr) but we don't currently have an article on the team and since Iraq currently doesn't have a fully professional league, he fails WP:NFOOTY. The article also makes extraordinary claims about his founding (at the tender age of 16) of a media company that now gets millions of view on YouTube. This is unsupported by references. Pichpich (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails relevant notability criteria -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence that this is a notable soccer player. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of the four external links on the page, two are broken links. The two that work are interviews with someone named Hattan Qassim, presumably a different person than this. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:58, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Seems like there were some sources that were not included in the creation. The POV issues has also been resolved. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CrowdStrike[edit]

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

It seems like this company is non-notable as per WP:GNG and WP:CORP. I only see a few secondary sources containing coverage of this company. Most articles are from the Sony Pictures Entertainment hack back in late 2014. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed: barring presentation of reliable secondary sources asserting the notability of this company, there's nothing to go on here. It would appear the creator of the article is trying to edit war {{advert}} off of the article, which is not a good sign. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to no opinion either way; a bit on the fence here. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as basically G11 material too, this and the questionability for notability are enough to delete of course. It's newly founded and only localized, nothing else to suggest convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 00:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:G11. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
~~Comment~~ I've edited it for WP:NPOV, since the article creator preferred repeatedly removing the advert tag to actually fixing the article. I hope the article cam now be evaluated on the basis of notability rather than spamminess. OnionRing (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I've now added several WP:RS giving significant coverage of the company. @LuK3:, @Hammersoft:, @SwisterTwister:, @Xxanthippe:, can I persuade you to rethink on this? OnionRing (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page be deleted. It appears they now have reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.239.11 (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article was copy edited after the nomination for deletion, and presently does not have a promotional tone. The article is neutrally worded and simply provides an overview of the company at this time. The company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Some source examples that provide significant coverage about it are listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The New York Times
Tech Republic
Fortune
Network World
Network World
Fortune (1:03 length video news report)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss World. Both !voter and nom agree Merge is best so merging. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World Talent[edit]

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

Not a separate pageant but a preliminary round for Miss World. At best could be merged with the parent but it seems to fail WP:GNG. The Banner talk 18:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Miss World, which will improve the merge target article. The content is verifiable, but the depth of coverage available is not enough to qualify a standalone article. Some source examples include, but are not limited to: [6], [7], [8], [9], etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 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 speedy delete. G11 the article is a pure advertisement DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Partner Engineering and Science, Inc.[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Company exists but is not particularly notable. ubiquity (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A very "adverty" article, which with a cursory search does not yield any reliable references -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:10, 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 merge to Miss World. Both !voter and nom agree Merge is best so merging. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World Best in Swimsuit[edit]

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

Not a separate pageant but a preliminary round for Miss World. At best could be merged with the parent but it seems to fail WP:GNG. The Banner talk 18:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Miss World, which will improve the merge target article. The content is verifiable, but the depth of coverage available is not enough to qualify a standalone article. Some source examples include, but are not limited to: [10], [11], [12], [13], etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:47, 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 merge to Miss World. Both !voter and nom agree Merge is best so merging. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World Beach Beauty[edit]

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

Not a separate pageant but a preliminary round for Miss World. At best could be merged with the parent but it seems to fail WP:GNG. The Banner talk 18:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Miss World, which will improve that article. The content is verifiable, but the depth of coverage available is not enough for a standalone article. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 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 merge to Miss World. Both !voter and nom agree Merge is best so merging. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World Top Model[edit]

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

Not a separate pageant but a preliminary round for Miss World. At best could be merged with the parent but it seems to fail WP:GNG. The Banner talk 18:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Miss World, which will improve that article. The content is verifiable, but the depth of coverage available is not enough for a standalone article. Some source examples include [19], [20], [21], [22] (more are available). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 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 merge to Miss World. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World Sports[edit]

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

Not a separate pageant but a preliminary round for Miss World. At best could be merged with the parent but it seems to fail WP:GNG. The Banner talk 18:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Miss World, which will improve the merge target article. The content is verifiable, but the depth of coverage available is not enough for a standalone article. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [23], [24], [25]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 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 delete. Thanks everyone who participated. Please keep all responses to closure civil. If you wish to contest the results, please visit deletion review. Missvain (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darren White (actor)[edit]

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

Notability, no credible sources, don't think it pass WP:NACTOR FITINDIA फ़िटइंडिया (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequate sources to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lead & Ink (talk • contribs) 09:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article was nominated for deletion 39 minutes after its creation. You need to allow more time. There are now adequate sources to demonstrate notability. Cyclic Learning (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2016 (GMT+1)
The above two comments one by the creator of the page and the other user unsigned comment User registered on 2016-06-11 and has only made edits to [26] Darren White (actor)--- FITINDIA (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lack of substantial coverage from reliable sources. Doesn't appear to satisfy general notability guidelines. Article's creator has expressed a desire to delete article. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the creator's attempts to blank the page, this is eligible for speedy deletion. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Lead & Ink is a Confirmed sock of Cyclic Learning. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyclic Learning.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 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. Thanks everyone who participated. Please keep all responses to closure civil. If you wish to contest the results, please visit deletion review. Missvain (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skullcruncher[edit]

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

Minor Transformers character. No evidence of real-world notability. Contested prod. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not need its own article per WP:FICT -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Refs only confirm existence, not notability. The broader topic of being "popular with children" is also not a valid reason to keep this article. No need to redirect, since anyone searching this specialized term would be able to locate other relevant pages with ease. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google Books results are price guides and tie-ins. Web search is fan sites and other unreliable sources. The character does not seem notable independent of the franchise. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:09, 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. Thanks everyone who participated. Please keep all responses to closure civil. If you wish to contest the results, please visit deletion review. Missvain (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incinerator (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor character Transformers character; no evidence of real world notability. No reliable third-party sources cited. Contested prod. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not need its own article per WP:FICT - tying with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skullcruncher, perhaps a standalone article on minor Transformers characters would be better? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like many other characters with a generic name, it's difficult to research this one. Google Books results look like the usual mix of price guides and tie-ins. Web search mostly just reveals fan sites. Like the others, this character does not seem independently notable of the franchise itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:25, 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. Thanks everyone who participated. Please keep all responses to closure civil. If you wish to contest the results, please visit deletion review. Missvain (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garland SF-01[edit]

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

Fictional vehicle article containing nothing but original research and specs. Six year old in-universe,notability and unsourced tags. Unlikely to have the scope for a legitimate article. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable vehicle lacking coverage to establish notability. P.S. in the future, consider bundling the articles together. Though not too late either, just point the second nomination to this one. Opencooper (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Burn with fire (Delete) - This is made for wikia, not Wikipedia as per nom it fails per WP:OR/WP:N. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not independently notable. The Eight-Six in Initial D has more notability and even that doesn't have an article or redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into either an article on the various fictional cars depicted, or into the main anime article itself. No reason to delete this, when it can be solved via regular editing. Non-notability is not a reason to remove the history of good faith contributions from Wikipedia, bur rather a good reason to curate them into one or more articles that both aligns with our guidelines and serves our readers. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to merge. It's all uncited original research or redundant plot. This content is more appropriate for a fan wiki, and you're more than welcome to transwiki it to Wikia if you don't want to see it lost. Opencooper (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Cooper, if there were content to salvage that was referenced then okay, but what we have is just fan based nonsense. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:02, 14 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. Thanks everyone who participated. Please keep all responses to closure civil. If you wish to contest the results, please visit deletion review. Missvain (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garland SF-03[edit]

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

Fictional vehicle article containing nothing but original research and specs. Six year old in-universe and unsourced tags. Unlikely to have the scope for a legitimate article. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burn with fire (Delete) - This is made for wikia, not Wikipedia as per nom it fails per WP:OR/WP:N. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable vehicle lacking coverage to establish notability. Opencooper (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not independently notable. We get it that Garland is a fictional brand in the show. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:32, 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 delete. Thanks everyone who participated. Please keep all responses to closure civil. If you wish to contest the results, please visit deletion review. Missvain (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kandawale[edit]

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

No relevant references--none of the four even mention the website or the company. They're all just about the general situation. DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's only the amount of coverage that would be expected here especially how the media works for India, thus there would of course be coverage but simply nothing for any level of notability here yet. SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The page content is effectively the propositional material for this start-up, positioning their market opportunity. The tone is promotional and non-encyclopaedic. Nothing provided that could meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:NWEB nor are my searches - including the customised Indian English Newspaper Search - locating anything that could demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 18:54, 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 delete. Thanks everyone who participated. Please keep all responses to closure civil. If you wish to contest the results, please visit deletion review. Missvain (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flok[edit]

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

promotional article on minor company. The references, even venturebeat & chrunchbase, are essentially press releases or are mere notices of funding. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing all for any basic notability, newly started company with nothing at all outstanding yet. SwisterTwister talk 18:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

·I've edited the page to remove promotional aspects, but believe it should not be deleted. The article cites real, major , 3rd-party news sources including VentureBeat and CMSWire, and these are not company-sourced press releases. "Essentially press releases" is a judgement call, not fact. This company has raised millions from a major VC, creating significance. Here are is a list of companies backed by General Catalyst: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Catalyst_Partners#Investments

As precedent, here are a few similar companies that have pages:

°https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LevelUp

°https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belly_(loyalty_program)

°https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopkick

Rickmangold (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)RickmangoldRickmangold (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you believe those pages are inadequate, then perhaps. we can bring those up to AFD, too. GAB^gab 14:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LevelUp and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belly (loyalty program). Shopkick seems a much more established business with reasonably good sources, tho it needs some work to remove promotional elements. Most such companies are non-notable, but this does not mean that all of them are. We should have articles on major companies if they are properly written. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) SST flyer at 08:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boxeur Des Rues[edit]

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

No evidence of any significance from the two refs provided. Searches suggest nothing better. Tagged for notability three weeks ago but additions since provide no improvement in notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 17:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Pavarini, Maria Cristina (2013-10-11). "Boxeur Des Rues bets in Made in Italy". Sportswear International. Deutscher Fachverlag. Archived from the original on 2016-06-04. Retrieved 2016-06-04.
  The article notes:
  
  Italian streetwear brand Boxeur Des Rues is expanding in Italy and internationally. The brand was born in France in 2003 and is now owned by Italian entrepreneur CEO Federico De Ponti.
  ...
  The company has already opened two flagship stores, most recently one in Milan in November 2012, and one in Madrid in November 2013. The brand will open its first French monobrand store in St.Tropez in 2014.
2. "В Петербурге открылся первый магазин Boxeur Des Rues". ru:Собака.ru (in Russian). 2014-09-08. Archived from the original on 2016-06-04. Retrieved 2016-06-04.
  The Google Translate of the article notes:
  Boxeur Des Rues - literally from French. "Street fighter". The brand is inspired by the French boxing savate. This combination of elements of the English boxing with martial arts, who borrowed and taken to the beginning of the XIX century French sailors from Asian ports. This technique was used in the fights street fights that were often in those days. Later in Marseille - the largest and most notorious port of Europe - there were numerous illegal fight clubs. It was at this time and there was a term boxeur des rues: real athletes who were born and lived on the street. And the essence of the brand Boxeur Des Rues was the merger of the street and sporting style. The first store under the brand Boxeur Des Rues were opened in Italy. To date, there are 40 single-brand stores and more than 600 multi-brand.
3. "Il negozio del futuro è già oggi per Boxeur des Rues. Il concept store 2.0 dello street style è a Milano (con l'Rfid)". thebizloft (in Italian). 2013-06-03. Archived from the original on 2016-06-04. Retrieved 2016-06-04.
  The Google Translate of the article notes:
  The store of the future? we must not wait to get to know how it will be. For Boxeur des Rues, in fact, the store of the future is already a reality. The street style fashion brand has translated its will to action, transforming the flagship store in Via Torino (in Milan) in a store 2.0 concept. Through RFID, led wall, social, and sensors magic mirror for smart fitting, the physical and virtual worlds meet to ensure the shopping experience a mix of emotions and truly innovative services. Store of the Future and concept store 2.0
  Established brand sportswear and streetwear inspired by the world of French boxing and fight illegal clubs Marseille, Boxeur des Rues produces men, women and children's collections for a total of 1 million garments every year. Clothing and accessories are sold through a channel of 35 direct stores in Europe and Asia, with the addition of a more than 600 stores multibrand channel.
4. Kinic, Allan (2015-03-21). "Boxeur des rues, une marque inspirée par la boxe". streetnsports.fr (in French). Archived from the original on 2016-06-04. Retrieved 2016-06-04.
  The Google Translate of the article notes:
  Boxer street is an Italian brand, inspired by the world of French boxing. This sport was born from the union of the techniques of boxing and oriental martial arts. French boxing was imported in the late 19th century by French sailors who were calling at the ports of Southeast Asia and the Far East and who used it during recurrent fights.
  Many circles of clandestine fights (the fight clubs) then appeared in the port of Marseille known to be one of the most infamous in Europe and one of the most important. In these circles, paris were engaged on men trained and determined to win.
  The Boxer brand street was so inspired by the story of these athletes who were born and grew up in the street, by merging the world of streetwear and sportswear.
5. "Boxeur Des Rues studia il lusso da combattimento". Pambianconews (in Italian). 2013-04-15. Archived from the original on 2016-06-04. Retrieved 2016-06-04.
  The Google Translate of the article notes:
  Part of the concept of sporting luxury new draft Boxeur Des Rues. The brand that is inspired by the world of savate, the French boxing, and it literally means "street fighter", while maintaining its core business of fashion, aims to conquer some European markets as a specialist in high-end clothing and accessories. "We opened a research and development of technical materials to produce, to asempio, made gloves in high-level Italy bringing the luxury in the world of combat," explained the CEO Federico De Ponti.
  ...
  The company, which closed the 2012 to share € 25 million and a growth of around 10% over the previous year, has 30 flagship stores, including twenty in Italy, including the largest flagship store opened a few months ago in via Torino, Milan. And retail development does not seem to stop. "The next openings will cover three stores in Spain, where we recorded an exceptional growth of 20%, one in Austria and one in Italy, in the Triveneto".
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Boxeur Des Rues to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I have noticed the news sources above but none of it is actually solid enough to improve the article to the levels of solid independent notability, the listed coverage information is not convincing enough and my own searches have found nothing convincingly better. Please see also Italian Wiki which actually deleted this multiple times so this shows the concerns; native Wikis usually keep their own articles including with no improvements but this suggests there's certainly nothing acceptable for English. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Tom29739 ^[talk] 19:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, company is not notable, fails WP:ORG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Cunard's sources warrant more detailed discussion. Sandstein 17:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's sources and plenty more potential sources on Google News. (Also, 'des' should be lowercase per standard French capitalization.) Pburka (talk) 19:33, 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. Thanks everyone who participated. Please keep all responses to closure civil. If you wish to contest the results, please visit deletion review. Missvain (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Suljević[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:48, 8 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) 18:06, 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 delete. sufficient consensus after the relistings -- especially because I consider this would even qualify for speedy A7. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Petrecca[edit]

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

Searches have found expected mentions at News, Books and Highbeam but nothing actually convincingly better for the applicable notability such as WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green Arrow (Arrow episode)[edit]

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

Even though this articles has sources (just episode reviews), there is nothing about it that makes it notable based on the information provided in the article. Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 04:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i'm confused, the article has 6 reviews, more than enough to meet WP:GNG, are you saying that none of these are reliable or is it that they do not specifically look at this episode but the series as a whole? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Episode articles should generally have more content than plot summary and reviews for the episode. Considering that the only other episode for Arrow to have an article is the pilot, this brings into further question the purpose of this article. In my eyes, the users just wanted to create the article for the sake of creating it, not because there were some notable elements surrounding it, be it on the production side, or critical commentary (again outside of the general reviews each episode gets each week). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd probably redirect over delete, but Favre is right...having some reviews is not enough to satisfy creating an article that is being used mostly as a giant plot summary. There is nothing justifying the existence of this page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm fine redirecting, but figured if the redirect existed, it might "encourage" IPs or other users to try and recreate the article, knowing the redirect exists. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm an episode article fanatic, but agree that this is just lead, plot, crew and reviews. Throw in more production notes, sound bite the reviews, and I might change my vote. — Wylie pedia 19:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews are sufficient to meet GNG and this one has plenty. Other info is nice to have, but we don't delete notable articles just because they aren't yet all that they can be. Jclemens (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's the point Jclemens. There isn't any other info for this episode. As has been stated, it is lacking the "notability" beyond the reviews all episode gets to warrant it being kept. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - And that's where you're wrong. If there are 2 independent, RS reviews, then the WP:GNG is met, and there's no cause for deletion. Don't let the perfect (reception, filming, locations, etc.) be the enemy of the good. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As a WikiProject Television contributor, this is what we go by. Articlewise, "Green Arrow" barely meets those standards. — Wylie pedia 06:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment should the consensus deem this be kept, then the best course of action would be to make the article a redirect at this time, per all the reasons I have been stating above, and for CAWylie also pointing out how this "barely meets [the TV MOS] standards." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there appears to be plenty of secondary coverage of this episode. Agree with arguments made by the other "Keep" voters. LAroboGuy (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as not only is this seeming to be the consensus, there's enough to at least suggest minimal convincing; we can however later consider redirecting when and if the time comes. SwisterTwister talk 17:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MOSTV. It's well-referenced and includes additional details beyond just plot. Coderzombie (talk) 18:11, 16 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. Presumed notable per WP:NGRIDIRON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Goode[edit]

Delete and SALT: as non-notable, COI, recreation of deleted article. Quis separabit? 17:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this individual is the same person as referenced here, then he would be notable per WP:NGRIDIRON as a former NFL player. Ejgreen77 (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played in the NFL. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NGRIDIRON. Played in 35 games and started in 4 of them.[27]. Discussion over. Lizard (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NGRIDIRON, however this article could use a significant overhaul. The way the article is currently written, it primarily emphasizes the subject's non-notable acting career at the expense of his notable NFL career. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally he was a first-team All-American in college by an official selector, so that alone is usually enough to satisfy notability even without an NFL career. Lizard (talk) 03:40, 15 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. Thanks everyone who participated. Please keep all responses to closure civil. If you wish to contest the results, please visit deletion review. Missvain (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Humberto Silva[edit]

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

Silva is the founder of several organizations that appear to be doing good work, but are not themselves particularly notable. His Associação Brasileira dos Portadores de Hepatite (Brazilian Association of Hepatitis Carriers) is not even mentioned in this article, but has received some press in Brazil for funding Hep C testing in Brazil. The organization mentioned in this article, the World Hepatitis Fund, is, according to its Washington State filings, essentially defunct, with no income and no assets. Most of the references in the article refer to Silva's media appearances where he is being interviewed, but none of them appear to be independent reports about Silva. Also, the article is unabashedly laudatory of Silva, and appears to have been written by someone closely related. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to this edit, Julio.frasneli.silva claims to be unrelated to Humberto Silva. I'm willing to assume good faith on this, but it does not change the issue of deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response for the discussion about Article for deletion, Humberto Silva[edit]

The notability of the organizations in which Humberto Silva is founder aren't, separately, very notable indeed but the organizations are not the center of the article. The organizations are just a portion of what makes Humberto Silva a notable character in his country, his community, in Rotary, and in a lot of important international philanthropic organizations. The references clearly shows that he is a central pillar for enormous and fundamental social projects in Brazil. And I disagree on the claim that the article is laudatory, all the content of the article are the personal experiences of Humberto Silva, described by himself in his public pronunciations and interviews. And also all the humanitarian actions embased by the references. Julio.frasneli.silva (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is noticeably hinting at promotional also considering it's explosively detailed but still nothing for any simplicity signs of basic notability. Delete until someone can give a better article. SwisterTwister talk 01:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable humanitarian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 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. Thanks everyone who participated. Please keep all responses to closure civil. If you wish to contest the results, please visit deletion review. Missvain (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ISH (Singing Group)[edit]

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

Non-notable music group. While this duo might have a promising career ahead, they have not yet achieved anything that would make them notable. The "interest of mainstream publications" refers to an interview they gave to soultrain.com in which they were singled out specifically because they are, as yet, up and coming and not yet established. Their appearance in the documentary Still Standing is not notable because that is not a notable film. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a case of [{WP:TOOSOON]]. Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naturallydriven - "comments" This group is known underground and is gaining attention of some mainstream media. Recently, the group has been confused, on several occasions with a Canadian entertainer who shares the same stage name. Fans have been receiving mixed information about where the correct artist will be performing. This article is meant to help separate the group from the other artist, and to allow each set of fans to be aware of the other entertainer with the name Ish. —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment @Naturallydriven: Being known underground (i.e. out of the eye of reliable sources) doesn't help, as Wikipedia relies on reliable sources for verification of its contents. I haven't seen evidence that this group is "gaining attention of some mainstream media"; if such is the case, please produce the citations. If the entire purpose of this article is to help this group with its identifiability, that falls under the scope of promotion, and is disallowed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:20, 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 delete. Thanks everyone who participated. Please keep all responses to closure civil. If you wish to contest the results, please visit deletion review. Missvain (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Fluckiger[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources, did a quick google search and no reliable sources found, does not meet WP:BIO. 1990'sguy (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Being a chairman of a political party is not in and of itself significant. All the page's current references are dead links and is subject to BLP PROD. Meatsgains (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete position in such a minor party is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 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. Per consensus, keep and move to Army Staff (Denmark). (non-admin closure) Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Army Staff[edit]

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

No need of separate article. Can be mentioned in Defence_Command_(Denmark). KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 16:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this article is useful for understanding the organisation of the Danish Army, something that may get lost under the Defence command page Gbawden (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - And then move to Army Staff (Denmark). There are already like named articles like Army Staff (Germany) and Army Staff (Sweden). Army Staff would better serve as a disambiguation page. EricSerge (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Gbawden. And move to Army Staff (Denmark) as suggested. --Pugilist (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for clarity per Gbawden, move to Army Staff (Denmark) per WP:MILMOS, and create DAB at Army Staff per WP:D. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:46, 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. Per the consensus, subject appears to meet WP:NACADEMIC. (non-admin closure) Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miloslav Petrusek[edit]

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

Contested PROD - Unreferenced biography stub without any indication of notability. Does not meet WP:NACADEMIC Peter Rehse (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gino1984 (talk · contribs) - Added bibliography and additional information to the entry, including references - on notability: according to WP:NACADEMIC this person meets criteria 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. --Gino1984 (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pro-rector and faculty dean of a very major university if nothing else. You don't get to those positions in a university as prestigious as the Charles University if you're a nobody. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not withdrawing (rather see this go to completion)- but I feel a lot better about this then when initially proposed. I would like to see better sources - a bibliography list does not indicate much.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excellent GS citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Academics publish - its what they do. List of publications do not speak to notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One might as well say "Nobel prizewinners win Nobel Prizes - its (sic) what they do." Xxanthippe (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Citations do, though... --Gino1984 (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. See WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:07, 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 [[]]. Missvain (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collingtree Primary School[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. No evidence of notability. ubiquity (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the town,as usual for primary schools. Could have been done without coming here, as it's perfectly standard. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LawnStarter[edit]

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

Non-notable company. First AfD was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LawnStarter:
The company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8].
Note that several of the articles provide significant background and contemporary information about the company, beyond the title of the headlines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
References
^ "Lawncare Made Easy, Lawnstarter Raises $6 Million Series A". The Huffington Post. 15 June 2015.

^ "LawnStarter Raises $6M To Become Your "Lawn Care Concierge"". TechCrunch. AOL. 2 June 2015.

^ Calnan, Christopher (3 June 2015). "Austin online marketplace operator LawnStarter raises funding - Austin Business Journal". Austin Business Journal.

^ "LawnStarter Raises $6 Million in a Series A Round". SiliconHills.

^ "LawnStarter Expands to San Antonio and Four Other Markets". SiliconHills.

^ "LawnStarter Launches in Austin to Simplify Lawn Care for Consumers". SiliconHills.

^ Calnan, Christopher (1 August 2014). "LawnStarter uses the Web to connect property owners with contractors". Austin Business Journal.

^ "Austin City Council to vote on 'Fair Chance Hiring' on Thursday". KTBC.
The sources found by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) clearly demonstrate that LawnStarter passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for WP:CORP, the Business Journals have been known for being hinted promotional for companies and none of the other listed websites are solidly satisfying anyway, overall this is still questionable for better. SwisterTwister talk 21:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Newspapers and publications published by American City Business Journals are reliable sources per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notable company. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. See also WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

TechCrunch
The Huffington Post
The Tennessean
San Diego Union-Tribune
San Antonio Current
Austin Business Journal
Austin Business Journal
Austin Business Journal
Miami Herald
Fox 7 News

The Business Journals are heavily used for starting companies and this is clearly the case with the coverage only being expected for a starting company, there's nothing to suggest there's established solidity yet and therefore should not be kept until there's better available. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other sources? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article as it stands reads like an advert and lacks notability.Star Islington (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does the article read like an advertisement? It contains no promotional language, does not extol the benefits or greatness of the company, etc. It is entirely neutrally worded and provides an general overview of the company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's just one example: "The company's online and mobile applications enable the booking and paying for of lawn care, with access to services and payments on-the-go." That's not "entirely neutral," it's at best 2/3 PR fluff. "The company offers online and mobile applications" is at most all that's necessary for an encyclopedia—and, frankly, even that is superfluous; so what, in terms of the history and actual encyclopedic notability of the company? "[W]ith access to services and payments 'on the go'" is fluff marketing content whether one realizes/wants to admit it or not; it's entirely unnecessary except to try to convince the reader that the company provides particularly helpful customer service, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed "with access to services and payments on-the-go". The "enable the booking and paying for of lawn care" is about what customers LawnStarter focuses on; I do not consider that part promotional. Cunard (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard: Thanks for copy editing the article; this is often all that is necessary, rather than blanket deletion of an entire article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This account was created on 8 June 2016, the same day this vote was made. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local business journals are merely places to publish press releases; OnNo matter how many such press releases there are, it still doesn't establish notability. The other sources are merely about start up funding. Current practice is that such sources do not establish notability, because they ar essentially indiscriminate-they cover any company that gets money and wants to announce it. Furthermore, the article is so highly promotional that it could be deleted or that alone. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an excellent reason for deletion, and the sooner we make that standard practice without having to argue each one of the hundred thousand that inundate us every year , the easier it will be to remove advertisements. Once we become a vehicle for advertisements, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is inaccurate. LawnStarter is based in Austin, Texas. This article from the major metropolitan newspaper The San Diego Union-Tribune is not about startup funding. It compares and contrasts Austin-based LawnStarter with San Diego-based Lawn Love. Example:
Both companies promise to simplify and speed up the sometimes-arduous task of ordering professional lawn care. Their solutions include tools that generate quick online or mobile quotes, provide service update notifications to customers, encourage reviews, and help route around operational challenges such as traffic or weather. Both also give their lawn-care technicians software to manage customers, scheduling and accounting.
The article further notes:
LawnStarter, meanwhile, launched in Austin in June of last year while going through the Techstars startup incubator. The company takes an undisclosed cut of fees, and offers its version of on-demand landscaping in Orlando, Washington D.C. and several cities across Maryland, Texas and Virginia. LawnStarter has raised a total of $7.25 million in funding, most recently closing $6 million to expand to more markets. San Diego is next on deck.
The upcoming battle between Lawn Love and LawnStarter may be worth watching, particularly if it helps consumers.
Likewise, this article from the major newspaper The Tennessean provides significant coverage about the subject: Furthermore, the article is not promotional. It merely contains basic information about the company. If you object to any of the content in the article, please explain and I'll fix it.
Cunard (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the San Diego story is a local story--it's a local story about a local company, that mentions its competitors. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does not merely "mention" its competitor LawnStarter. It discusses LawnStarter in substantial detail. See the material I quoted above, for example. From Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

There is no support in the notability guidelines that a regional newspaper like The San Diego Union-Tribune cannot be used to establish notability for a non-local company like LawnStarter if there is a local connection (in this case the competition between Austin-based LawnStarter and San Diego-based Lawn Love.

The San Diego article allows LawnStarter to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience, which says (my bolding), "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability."

Cunard (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard: Yeah, I stated in the last AfD discussion "that several of the articles provide significant background and contemporary information about the company, beyond the title of the headlines", but some appear to ignore this and just read the article headlines, apparently without reading the actual content. So it goes, I suppose. Also, the article does not have a promotional tone at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per references above. Aoziwe (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment However, if the above references and content is good enough to defend the article against deletion, then it must be good enough to include in the article. Conversely, if it is not good enough for the article it is not good enough to defend it against deletion. I suggest that the relevant contributor/s above add the referenced content to the article. Aoziwe (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the articles cited above are all announcements (press releases) and are not independent reporting of the subject. Announcing an influx of $6 million or even $10 million from investors is not notable. Companies, Corporations, and Startups do this everyday - it is routine. Follow the Silicon Valley companies and see how much funding they recieved in which round last week, yesterday, and today. Lawnstarter app in the app store is not reliable sourcing either (as in the refs). This article is a merely way of using Wikipedia for a promotional platform ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that coverage in the San Diego Tribune is so trivial. How is comparing this product with that product notable? It is trivial advertising and at best it is no par with an advice column - this does not speak for notability. In dealing with the thousands of articles that are using Wikipedia as an advertising platform, this issue wonderfully expressed in this Signpost article [28].
Comment the article in the San Diego Tribune reads like a press release. It seems as if both founders or presidents (or whatever) got together and issued a press release. I don't know, but this article is lifted from some sort of press release and appears to have been copied verbatim.

Anyway, this is all venture capital investor speak, complete with mentioning "netting a $6-million cash infusion from backers" ~~(ooh-wowee!)~~, "rake in $74.9 billion in revenue in the U.S. this year" ~~(wowee-so impressive!)~~, "Lawn Love went through Silicon Valley's esteemed Y Combinator startup accelerator program" ~~(what? - what is that? - who knows but it sounds impressive - more investor speak so you don't have to know - just be impressed!!)~~, "raised $1.9 million in seed funding" ~~(that's not that much is it? I mean compared to Unicorns? more venture investor speak)~~, " company...takes home between 10 percent and 15 percent of service fees" ~~(this is sure important to know!)~~ ... and so on. This is all aimed at investors, this is not journalistic or editorial integrity per WP:GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn:Regarding the San Diego Union-Tribune article, why on earth would the company write and release a supposed "press release" that includes a comparison of its competitor, Lawn Love, and using the tone within the article? This would make no sense as a press release. Then, you're implying that the authors of this supposed "press release" then somehow convinced the news source's author to publish it under their name, and that the editors of the newspaper somehow went along with all of this. Where's the proof? You're asserting that "this article is lifted from some sort of press release and appears to have been copied verbatim", but have provided no proof of such claim. Note that in this Google search for the title of the article, links to only two articles are there, both in the Sun Times network. Additional links such as [www.ooyuz.com/geturl?aid=6879789] and [article.wn.com/view/.../tech_startups_target_lawn_care_market_startups_target_lawn] are essentially mirrors, links to and unauthorized copies of the article. Your theory also implies that the staff writer of the article, Jennifer Van Grove, just added her name atop the supposed "press release". This is bit insulting to the journalistic integrity of the staff writer and the source itself. Could you provide any actual proof of this being a press release, or is only a proof by assertion argument going to be stated here? Sorry, but I think your analysis of this source is wholly incorrect. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yeah, it is a press release aimed at investors. After reading these awhile it easy to tell.~~ Also, it is common practice for companies to send press releases to beleaguered press rooms, and they are beleaguered all over the country - with much less resources than 15 years ago. It is just as easy to reproduce a pres release or similar type announcement as not. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This source - San Antonio - [29] there is no indication of noteworthiness. It is just announcing the arrival of LawnStarter - there is no indication of significant impact. Also, this company is not doing anything different from thousands of other companies that arrive in a city near you. Uber is notable, it has caused shifts in societies and cultures, and has had to fight to do so. Microsoft, Apple Inc. and Oracle Corp - producer of Java software - have all caused shifts in societies and cultures all over the globe. This company has not done so - especially with its reliance on a few apps (which look like small icons to consumers), --- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Rather - I say it like this - To me, it seems as though the San Diego Tribune piece reads like a press release.Steve Quinn (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. The San Diego Union-Tribune article does not read as a press release to me; it reads as an objective news article, which it is. Be sure to read page 2 of the article, if you have not already done so. You state about it, "Yeah, it is a press release aimed at investors", but where's the proof other than subjective opinion and argument by assertion? Furthermore, I have provided evidence above that it is indeed not a "press release", but rather, is an actual news article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: ---->

OK - I hope the following helps:

Another editor in another AfD, describing press releases, worte this: "They are press releases because they merely announce the release of a product, feature people from the company discussing the merits of the product, and at least one provides company contact information to learn more. Clearly a release put out by they company that was simply republished; it is not an independent [[WP:RELIABLE|reliable source. Also see WP:ORGIND". Here is the diif [30] and here is the AfD: [31].

For a little background I was already somewhat aware of this. In any case, I added the following (here is the diff [32])

" Interestingly enough, QuestionPro has published online a common strategy now used by thousands and thousands of businesses large and small: Five Tips for Getting Your Press Release Published (external link provided). And, right up front it comments on the problem in our modern day news departments across the country - they are understaffed. Then it touts the "five step" process for taking the load off shrinking news organizations (or in other words, exploiting the harried staff).

To get an idea of the changes taking place in the media industry, see this article: PR Industry Fills Vacuum Left by Shrinking Newsrooms.

As an aside, it is not only staff size that is shrinking; available resources from the parent media corporation for their respective news organizations are also shrinking. From Pew Research's Excellence in Journalism Project:

"Signs of the shrinking reporting power are documented throughout this year’s report. Estimates for newspaper newsroom cutbacks in 2012 put the industry down 30% since 2000 and below 40,000 full-time professional employees for the first time since 1978. In local TV, our special content report reveals, sports, weather and traffic now account on average for 40% of the content produced on the newscasts studied while story lengths shrink. On CNN, the cable channel that has branded itself around deep reporting, produced story packages were cut nearly in half from 2007" ([33])

.And signing for now (at this time) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't need to quote myself I suppose. Anyway, read DGGs Ivote above - he is talking about press releases as well. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking one of my comments above - I apologize if I came across as flippant. I'm going to take a break from this for awhile. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is all about a different article and source relative to that article, but does not confer to this article and the San Diego Union-Tribune article. You still have provided no evidence that this is a press release. It's unlikely that such evidence exists, because it's a valid news article. Note the evidence I presented above that supports my statements. It comes across that you feel that any news coverage about a company in news sources is somehow automatically a press release, but this is not the case here. Also note that Cunard has also refuted the notion of the sources being "press releases" above in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: I see that you are correct about the San Diego Tribune source. When I saw the repeats in the mirror sites and some of the phrases in the article itself - it seems I misinterpreted the whole thing. Apologies to you. I've probably been doing too many AfD's lately. Also, it seems this company is garnering a lot of press coverage - (actual tech journalism). I don't see why they have to have titles like "Such and Such Company pulls down $6 million in funding". It is totally off-putting. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question What is the issue with press releases ? Provided the press release is not on the primary source's site and not on a mirror site and not paid advertorial content ? What I mean is: If an entity issues a press release, and that press release is used either as just source material by the secondary source, or copied in part by the secondary source, or copied in full verbatim by the secondary source, then that secondary source has endorsed the content, just the same as if one of its own reporters had researched content from scratch. How do we objectively judge otherwise ? Aoziwe (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs)'s analysis of The San Diego Union-Tribune as not being a press release. It is improbable that the marketing teams of LawnStarter and its competitor Lawn Love would collaborate on a newspaper article written by a The San Diego Union-Tribune journalist. Impugning the journalistic integrity of The San Diego Union-Tribune writer Jennifer Van Grove should not be done without concrete evidence.
That a regional San Diego, California, newspaper has provided substantial coverage of an Austin, Texas, company strongly establishes notability under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience, which says (my bolding), "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability."
Steve Quinn, who has supported deletion, wrote above:
Also, it seems this company is garnering a lot of press coverage - (actual tech journalism). I don't see why they have to have titles like "Such and Such Company pulls down $6 million in funding". It is totally off-putting.
I agree that the titles might be better phrased. But that the company has "garner[ed] a lot of press coverage - (actual tech journalism)" means it meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).
Cunard (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoziwe:, thanks for bringing this up. First, pertaining to my previous edits at this AfD, I want to say I got carried away and may have even lost objectivity. It seems this can happen to the best of editors at times for various reasons.

Anyway, back to your comment and question. I think we can only objectively judge mostly by the reliability that we count on for a given source. For example, The Huffington Post, The San Deigo Tribune, The Tennessean, and the Miami Herald seem to be known for being reliable sources, due to their editorial integrity.

So, essentially, if a given reliable source has endorsed the content it published then that is what is so - whether or not it is partially sourced from a press release (or press releases). These are sources of information, and I have to believe that whatever report is derived from these, then they have been fact checked before publication - due to editorial integrity. Now I will veer away from your above comment to make my own point about something. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be noticing that all of the news stories in the above noted sources are publicizing only Lawn Starter's virtues There is no other side to this story (or these stories). Yes, perhaps, challenges it faces are mentioned. However, the downside, whatever it is, is not presented.

In contrast, regular news stories such as about a disaster or human tragedy and so on, cover more than one point of view (or multiple views) to produce a balanced story. In fact, the news media have been criticized (in the press) for its lack of depth sometimes - because journalists have been trained in this way ,i.e, to get all sides of a story before producing a story for publication.

Anyway, the point is, I am wondering if we shouldn't question the value of these sources due to their lack of balance. Also, because it seems clear the only sourcing is from this company and what they have to say. Of course, in the "Tribune" story there is a competitor, but again there is no downside presented for either company. Also, the other CEO is quoted as a source. In other words, no other views are taken into account in any of these sources.

For example, (and only for example) what do the already established lawn care company CEOs, spokesman, or representatives, have to say about ~~Lawn Care~~ Lawn Starter eroding their business or acquiring regular clients they regularly service? These views, for example, or any other views are not represented.

I'm just giving examples of how it might be that the sources listed above are not reporting in a way that counts toward being considered notable. It is possible that having an article for ~~Lawn Care~~ Lawn Starter is WP:TOOSOON at this particular time. If this is he case, then it may actually become notable later, in a manner similar to Uber. Lawn Starter is not doing that just yet because it is a new company - and maybe it needs more time to establish a notable track record. Just putting this out there. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cunnard it seems to be garnering press in mostly in tech sections of publications, or tech publications, or trade publications. It doesn't appear to be the same as regular news reporting--Steve Quinn (talk)

What you;re saying is that all these sources are essentially press releases.The criterion you use is a good way to tell. About 8 years ago I would have argued that major newspapers never publish press releases, but experience here has shown me otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Yes, that is very much what I am saying - the sources are essentially announcements, or another form of press release written by a staff member (of the newspaper) - publishing only perceived admiral qualities. This does not seem like good journalism to me. This happens because overburdened news organizations are now lacking those tremendous resources and large staffs that were available 15 years ago - and they have evolved to using press releases to generate news - as is happening here.

Also, Uber and Lyft have earned their place on Wikipedia by generating reams and reams of real press coverage in the national and international news. They did this by challenging many areas of our modern societies in countries across the globe, forcing us to take stock about where we stand about sending large segments of transportation companies' personnel to the unemployment line, as well as, how will each country regulate this new thing or suspend regulation, including does their vetting process equate to safety for all passengers, and so on. They have been causing cultural shifts - as did Microsoft, Google, and Apple inc before them.

Nowadays the apps that Uber and Lyft pioneered are commonplace, finding function in all kinds of businesses. Now the apps are just business as usual as unknown numbers of entrepreneurs rush to adapt this type of app to various and assorted businesses in the service sector. Garnering $1 million or $6 million in a certain round of funding does not establish a track record of notability. This happens with businesses everyday. Just check out any region and sector that has startups or companies that need investment. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It's like self--published books, a very few become notable. Our reasonable and well - established presumption at WP is that they are not going to be, unless there becomes very good evidence. Now we need to convince the other people in WP to follow this approach also for new companies--especially new internet companies. At this pt, those who go only by press "coverage" would have our standards for these be lower than for athletes and bands, where we have at least established the need for a certain degree of actual success, not just press coverage for trying. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Not seeing quite enough non-routine, non-press release, non-local, non-trivial coverage (i.e. not enough coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is what I also see - not enough coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, mostly because most all of the sources are saying pretty much the same thing - with perhaps the only difference between some is geographical locale. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - maybe just WP:TOOSOON. Startups are problematic; there's too much hype to get name recognition for a new business, and the general news cycle tends to do that regularly. Speaking of hype, why wasn't this speedied as WP:PROMO for COI and SPA given that the article creator is User:Lawnstarter.jake? That's a huge red flag. Additionally, everybody's got an app; that's not a significant marker of anything these days, and neither of the app store links are RS - we all know there's no bar to getting an app there as long as it works. The venture capital material is irrelevant as well; startups run on venture capital. There's also no way significant coverage is met by "50 startups to watch" unless it's a 600-page book. I also lean towards not using a business journal for notability; they're there for a promotional purpose whether it's apparent or not. There's nothing here that gets us out of WP:ENN. Steve Quinn is correct that notable companies tend to generate coverage outside of a company history or a management profile, and it takes time to do that. MSJapan (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SiliconHills stuff is really PR "we're in this market"-type stuff.

Delete. Promotional COI article created by Lawnstarter jake. The company is just a start-up, and the coverage is either strictly local or only about their financing to start the company. Softlavender (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Discounting the SPAs, there is a consensus to delete the article. Nakon 23:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TheLiberal.ie[edit]

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

Non-notable website Jadeslair (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and a bit promotional.142.105.159.60 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to whitewash seem to have finally calmed down. Website is reasonably prominent, no less prominent than a number of others. No storing opinion but see no need to delete at the moment.StringerNL (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable apart from the claims of blatant plagiarism and dodgy competitions, the article is suffering from a serious case of WP:COI editing. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The website itself is popular and the Facebook page was one of the most visited During December 2015. The claims of plagiarism are just that, claims. Most of the sources for the claims are anonymous and found on Twitter. The accusations of WP:COI are likewise just accusations based on the opinion of an editor. When I participated in the discussion one of those urging for the article's deletion accused me of being a sockpuppet (which I completely deny) so some of the critics are certainly very involved and volatile themselves. Barumba (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC) — Barumba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"The website is popular" - no proof, and irrlevant. It's actually outside the top 600 websites in Ireland. "Facebook page was one of the most visited during December 2015" - how exactly would you know this? No proof. Website fails WP:WEB. Note to closing admin: Barumba has made 20 edits in total to date. 19 of them have been to TheLiberal.ie, its talk page, or this AfD. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NewsWhip's website shows data to back up the claim that TheLiberal.ie is one of the top 8 Facebook pages in Ireland. It seems like you have some sort of personal vendetta against Leo Sherlock and theliberal.ie Surely you should leave that aside where Wikipedia is concerned? It's so blatantly obvious is laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imthenumberonefan (talk • contribs) 15:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC) — Imthenumberonefan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And the alleged popularity of a page on Facebook is irrelevant to an article about a website. Alexa shows the actual page in question isn't notable in Ireland or elsewhere. Note to closing admin: Imthenumberonefan is a SPA that has made 79 edits, total. All 79 of them have been to TheLiberal.ie, its talk page, or this AfD. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A website that is nationally known in Ireland isn't notable in Ireland? What's your hidden agenda, Bastun? You keep questioning me and other users yet you're unwilling to answer any questions yourself. You have an obvious gripe against Leo Sherlock or possibly the ethos of theliberal.ie which is it, both? If so, here is the place to say it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imthenumberonefan (talk • contribs) 00:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use that kind of rhetoric, please - it is inflammatory and against policy. GAB^gab 02:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple questions that arise from his erroneous editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imthenumberonefan (talk • contribs) 02:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've really searched for good sources here, and can find very little indeed. Yes, NewsWhip claims it had the 8th most Facebook interactions, in Ireland only, in one particular month, six months ago. However, temporary Facebook popularity isn't notability (and indeed doesn't translate to website popularity either according to Alexa). Incidentally, whilst looking for sources on this, I found a lot of postings on social media suggesting that the Liberal's Facebook count had been wildly boosted by "like and share" competitions which, shall we say, you were unlikely to win... Laura Jamieson (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TheLiberal.ie is consistently #1 in NewsWhip's results. It's among the most shared websites in Ireland on a daily basis. Any competitions is irrelevant to content share, just look at TheLiberal.ie Facebook page itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imthenumberonefan (talk • contribs) 13:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC) — Imthenumberonefan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Consistently #1 in NewsWhip's results? The source in the article says it was #8 in the rankings in one country for one month. Laura Jamieson (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's in terms of total interactions per month, I mean daily articles consistently shoot to #1 in Ireland, maybe you can't read properly or understand basic English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imthenumberonefan (talk • contribs) 15:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC) — Imthenumberonefan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Oh no, I'm quite able to read; unfortunately, you appear to be only able to read that which you agree with, whether true or, in this case, not. Or, more likely, in addition to being unable to sign your postings here, you simply don't understand the concept of reliable sources in Wikipedia. Some reading: WP:RS, WP:N, WP:V. Enjoy. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I came here after one of the participants sought my admin advice on the dispute at the article, so I won't cast any !vote. But having read the article and the AFD with my admin hat on, I do have a question: does any of the participants in this discussion claim that theliberal.ie meets WP:GNG?

So far as I see in the article, the sources currently listed there do not meet the GNG test of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Most of the references are to sources which are unreliable and/or not independent. Only two sources are arguably reliable: The Dublin Inquirer's article about TheLiberal.ie's plagiarism, and The Sun's revised version of the same article. Those are basically, the same piece.

Are there other sources which would establish notability per WP:GNG?

If not, then I see no basis for any claim that WP:GNG has been met. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete all manner of different web searches fails to find significant coverage of the website; just a few accusations of dubious behaviour which do not pass the notability threshold. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Unorthodox Jukebox. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 17:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie (Bruno Mars song)[edit]

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

This article doesn't represent a song that has had an impact on Bruno Mars' career or has ever been released as a promotional single. It only peaked on NZ Singles Chart for a couple of weeks, which is cited on the artist's discography. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Were you the one who tagged this for CSD earlier? It wouldn't fall under such a category. As the song did peak in New Zealand, I think that makes it notable. My !vote therefore is:

Keep --PatientZero ^talk 16:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my bad another user helped with that. If every song that peaked somewhere need an article all the songs would have articles, mainly with the streaming nowadays added to the charts. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the song did peak on a country's national music chart (according to the nominator), it should pass WP:NALBUM and should therefore be kept. Whether a song has had an impact on a singer's career seems very much like a subjective criterion to me, and certainly not one of the determinants listed at WP:NMUSIC. --Dps04 (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is peaking on any nation's chart -- regardless of size or demographics -- sufficient for WP:NALBUM? Bearian (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." → no reviews of the song without being the review of the album.

2) "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." → I don't see how can anyone expand this article.

3) "Wikipedia's goal is neither tiny articles that can never be expanded nor articles based primarily on what the subjects say about themselves. → This is the case

With all of this being said, please carry on with more comments. Honestly some of these rules should be changed like the following: "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts". Most of the songs nowadays will always chart due to huge streaming adjustments, in a couple off years. Wikipedia will be filled with "songs" that the only reason the article exists is because it charted somewhere due to huge streaming. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Unorthodox Jukebox. The non-primary sources are mostly reviews of the album, not reviews dedicated to the song itself. Because WP:NOPAGE is relevant here, a redirect to the album is appropriate. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect at best as I was going to type Keep, even though if this should be closed as Keep I'm acceptable for that, because regardless there's certainly no needs for actual deletion. SwisterTwister talk 17:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge – The topic has received some coverage (e.g. [34], [35], [36], [37], etc.), but not enough to qualify for a standalone article. A merge will serve to improve the target article and WP:PRESERVE appropriate content in the encyclopedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per SwisterTwister. The "Composition" section of Unorthodox Jukebox mentions the song and would possibly be an appropriate place to selectively merge some of the content as per Northamerica1000 prior to a redirect. Virond (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus appears to be that notability has not changed since the previous AfD. Although that discussion was closed as "keep" due to being withdrawn, the consensus was already leaning towards "keep". (non-admin closure) Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of A. F. M. Rezaul Karim Siddique[edit]

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

He is notable mainly for the cause of his murder. I can find any news coverage about him before his death. Can be covered in Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh. Mar11 (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have just had an AFD discussion here which closed on 5 May which resulted in the article being kept. Since then it was moved from a biography to a "Murder of" article without consensus for the move. Not only should it be kept, in my opinion the move should be reverted too. The AFD discussion specifically dealt with the possibility of moving the article to the secularists article and there was consensus that he was not a secularist. Didn't the nominator check the talk page first? Philafrenzy (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion, per explanation given by Philafrenzy. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The previous AfD discussion here closed on 5 May. The nominator has not given a valid reason for there being another AfD, and there is no valid basis to have another AfD. Edwardx (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per first AFD, and because there is no justification for a re-run.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all the previous comments and the previous AFD. CaseeArt ^Talk 04:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that his "biography" is placed in his article below the section about his murder, has more redlinks than blue, and has only two sources indicates his lack of notability. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before it was restructured without consensus it did have a more normal structure. See here. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability demonstrated by sources. Everyking (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Too close after the first AfD. This one has notability through plenty of good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 19:34, 14 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest players in IBL Indonesia history[edit]

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

This fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTSTATS, and has no encyclopedic value. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Per mentioned policies and this league is not significant enough to have any kind of lists. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Really a pretty random list - the Indonesian Basketball League would not be considered a top-tier league in any sense of the word. Rikster2 (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep interesting list. Height and basketball go together so this is not an indiscriminate list. MLA (talk) 07:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Being interesting and being notable are two different things. This list fails WP:LISTN. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is indiscriminate collection of information. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:08, 16 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. Thanks everyone who participated. Please keep all responses to closure civil. If you wish to contest the results, please visit deletion review. Missvain (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Topschij[edit]

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

CSDd yet author removed tag. Blatantly non-notable. Only a single independent source is available. Author's been trying to spam articles with the subject's name, etc. Likely autobiography or COI, the author of which seems to believe 3000 twitter followers amounts to being notable. His argument (posted on my talk page) states "has an amassed online following". 5 IP addresses later tried removing the AfD tag. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete self promotional WP:AUTOBIO created by a single purpose editor so COI concerns as well. LibStar (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per FoCuSandLeArN and Libstar. Clearly self-promotion.-gadfium 19:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not sure any number of twitter followers would make one notable, but 3,000 does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because he is just not notable at all. But as for Twitter followers, the top 100 people with most Twitter followers have between 13 and 89 million followers each. I suggest they are all notable if for nothing else but a good following. Schwede 66 09:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as A11---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shay Renee[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, can't find any mention in RS Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete a10 or a11, it's a glorified mojito. No mention of it online in WP:RS. OnionRing (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No online sources when I searched, only names or part of a name of a person. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 13:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable subject. Star Islington (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. (Pamela Cox and The Third Form at St. Clare's have both been redirected, but this title seems too unlikely as a search term to redirect to Malory Towers. If anyone disagrees, go ahead and create the redirect.) Deor (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Books of Malory Towers written by Pamela Cox[edit]

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

Poorly referenced, no indication of notability per WP:NBOOKS, no significant coverage online from WP:RS. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Cox and WP:Articles for deletion/The Third Form at St. Clare's. OnionRing (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 08:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It might be worthwhile to create a subsection for Cox in Blyton's article since she's continuing two of the author's series. Cox doesn't seem to be independently notable outside of being a ghostwriter for Blyton, but there's merit in having a small mention of her picking up the series' reigns. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is something like this already at Malory Towers#Books, thought it's currently unreferenced. It could be referenced and expanded. OnionRing (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more of just a general overview of Cox since she's working on two of Blyton's series, Malory Towers and The Third Form at St. Clare's. It would really be more of a few brief sentences akin to how V. C. Andrews's ghostwriter is mentioned in her article. I don't think Cox merits her own article at this point in time, but I think that covering her somewhere (and giving a redirect) might deter future attempts to create articles about her specifically. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this, and put section in Blyton article per Tokyogirl79. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. She's now mentioned at Enid_Blyton#Ghost_writing. I don't think that there's any reason for a redirect for this specific title, given how clunky it is. I'll make a redirect for Cox, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly nothing for its own actual article, nothing else convincing as this all speaks for itself. SwisterTwister talk 17:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree that what has been done (redirect) is all that can be done. No individual notability for this article exists. Fylbecatulous talk 16:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untimely[edit]

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

Non-notable upcoming film, no independent secondary coverage, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 11:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any reliable sources on this film; judging from the budget and the people involved, it is a small indie project. Fails NFF and GNG. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per reasons by the user above. Neither could I find any reliable sources on the film by searching the web. Fails to meet notability criteria. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 12:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:NFF and being TOO SOON. The topic can be reconsidered if or when it gets coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:23, 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. Uncontested. SwisterTwister: that's a mind boggling argument there, I can't parse what you're trying to say. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of FundeCruz[edit]

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

No longer exists according to Charity Commission. No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable charity for which the best I found were passing mentions [38],[39]. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing minimally convincing of any actual universal notability, only a a local with of course granted signs of any expected and local coverage but still nothing actually convincing of the needed notability solidity and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 17:34, 16 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. sufficient consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Fu To'a[edit]

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

Looks like it's promotional. No sign of notability. Tons and tons of new schools in martial arts is being created every year in Iran. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 12:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no indication this is a notable martial art. The reference links either don't work or aren't independent. Appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Not notable. No 3rd-party sources to verify notability. Reads like an advert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Islington (talk • contribs) 18:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage. I doubt there are 73,000 moves to learn. I also didn't find reliable independent coverage to show its founder is notable.Mdtemp (talk) 16:27, 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards won by Marathi people[edit]

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

I don’t understand why such a list has been made. Ok fine, the person is Marathi and he won some award somewhere. Why do we have to have a list of all such award clubbed together just because the person is Marathi? Such vanity list is a overcategorization and useless and unencyclopedic. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable intersection. Too broad of a topic. What next? List of Bengalis who like apple pies? Direct quote from WP:LISTCRITERIA: "When establishing membership criteria for a list, ask yourself if the following are true: If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?". A Tamil Sachin Tendulkar would have still won the Bharat Ratna, as would have a Bengali Lata Mangeshkar. utcursch | talk 14:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well said! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate collection of information, totally pointless. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obviously too wide a subject to become both sensibly collected and also maintained thus nothing actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:39, 16 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. Deor (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To Love Somebody (2014 British film)[edit]

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

Non notable film. Reviews are not from reliable sources, not from "nationally known critics". None of it's awards are major. Part of an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are about 50 hits on Google for "To Love Somebody" "ben rider", and none of them look reliable. The citations in the article to blogs and IMDb trivia. The best I can find is this database entry at British Council, which only proves that the film exists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

expand:

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

Comment: Girls On Film, London looks okay enough, but the various film-related blogs need to be evaluated, as while some may not be, some just might be fine. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Award mentions at Indiefest Film awards and Maverick Movie Awards have been returned to page. Both institutions are fairly well established as reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happybunny58592 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now as I have evaluated the article and its sources and at best there's nothing solidly convincing thus delete for now. This can be Drafted if ever needed later. SwisterTwister talk 17:39, 16 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. Deor (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Devils (film)[edit]

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

Non notable film "released" to file sharing site. Reviews are not from reliable sources, not from "nationally known critics". Part of an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This one has more Google hits than his debut, but I still only got around 75 results. Same problem: none of them are significant coverage in reliable sources. There's a trivial mention or two that lists it in databases or in film festival line-ups, but that's not enough to establish notability. The reviews listed in the article are self-published blogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a film known only to select blogs, fails GNG. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as I evaluated the information and sources but there's nothing particularly convincing, could be acceptable at best but still questionably solid. SwisterTwister talk 17:42, 16 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. Deor (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Tomorrow[edit]

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

Non notable future film. Part of an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like the other entries in Rider's filmography, this film seems to lack significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources in the article are not good enough to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I examined the information and sources but, especially considering it's not yet released, there's still nothing particularly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not a notable film. The film hasn't even released. Coderzombie (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 22:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Behindwoods[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEBCRIT. Not a popular website, fails WP:NOT as well. Coderzombie (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No idea why this article is being picked on but it meets GNG and is adequately sourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nomination. It just seems like one of many fan sites. Can't find any reliable sources. BollywoodFanForever (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Isn't the media coverage of the site's award ceremonies ([40] and [41]) enough to prove the site's notability? Kailash29792 (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kailash29792, the 2nd of those links does not function.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does not constitute notability on its own as per Wikipedia:Notability (awards) Coderzombie (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment not valid. Wikipedia:Notability (awards) is an obsolete page, but was in all events not applicable since it deals with award recipients, not, as here, award-granting institutions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the second link. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a newish film website that has gotten some coverage of its annual film awards. Problem is that the facts on the page are self-sourced, the few secondary sources list the awards, but say little about Behindwoods itself, and I do not see enough mentions in secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. Flag me if you find better sourcesE.M.Gregory (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about draftify? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of content as much as it's of notability to me. Coderzombie (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did a quick online search and could not find strong sources to determine notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Islington (talk • contribs) 18:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, but I do not consider these 2 sources [42], [43] as reliable (otherwise our "prestigious teahouse" would be notable). Some of the references available in the article do mention the subject, but only in passing. I am yet to find a reliable secondary source which has significant coverage of the topic. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lemongirl942, I don't have an opinion in this article but I just want to comment on the sourcing. It's the city pages of Times of India, Indian Express, Hindustan Times, New Indian Express etc that have all sorts of user submitted content under the guise of journalistic output. The entertainment section is a different animal altogether. I'm not saying it's good, just that it's not the same or comparable as they have different goals and standards (at the least, these pages aren't pure user submissions). —SpacemanSpiff 02:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanSpiff Ah, I see. You are right about this. I browsed the entertainment section of the "New Indian Express" and there does seem to be some sort of editorial control (as compared to the Teahouse article). And although some of the articles read a bit like press releases and seem to be sourced from IANS, the standards are better than the city pages content - which may be user submitted. Thank you for letting me know. I'll be careful about this as I had previously (incorrectly) assumed this was a non-RS publication as a whole. This is definitely not the case here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as both my examinations here and my searches found nothing better, sources and information....but still nothing else particularly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 22:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Roscoe Beck Bass[edit]

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

Entirely unreferenced article about non-notable commercial product. Mikeblas (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as fairly blatant, IMO, business promo. Quis separabit? 19:58, 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 09:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious promotion, not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I have found nothing else particularly better, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 22:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Francesca[edit]

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

Fails General notability. The article has stood for months with only primary sources and Google news sources run dry. w^L^{<speak·check>} 02:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Appears to be mostly a internet personality, fails NACTOR. That said, if others care to improve sourcing, I will reconsider my position. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:46, 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 09:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She seems to be popular if I go by the 400,000 likes on her Facebook page. But popularity is not the same as notability. Almost all coverage of her exists in self published sources. I could not find a single reliable secondary source which covered the subject in detail. Delete for now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- She also has a quarter of a million Youtube subscribers, 28 thousand Twitter followers, and 95.4 thousand followers on Instagram. That's a lot. --Marpacheco (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to find several secondary sources concerning the subject here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I admit, I'm not sure if these sources are that reliable or if they are enough, and that is the question I put to you all. I say we keep the page up for now, while we determine if these secondary sources will work. She may not seem notable at the moment, but I'm sure soon enough she will be. And then this won't be a problem. --Marpacheco (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, except for the playboy.com link (which I cannot access as it is banned in my country), the others are not reliable. Also, this article has been up for 4 years now. If she isn't notable by now, I don't see a need to keep this article in the hope that she will become notable. If she indeed does become notable, it can be recreated at that time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She just doesn't seem notable, unfortunately. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has appeared in supporting roles for notable media, such as Louie, The Daily Show, and the movie, Muck. This exposes her to a VERY high number of people outside of her own internet following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.175.225 (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As just mentioned, supporting roles only. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Supporting roles only" doesn't show lack of notability. In fact, notable awards and honors have been given out for supporting roles. Vic Dibitetto's article was once nominated for deletion. However, the decision was 'keep" BECAUSE of his supporting roles in mainstream media. "Supporting roles only" is not a valid defense for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.175.225 (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm happening to find this and my searches have simply found nothing better at all, nothing minimally better and the article, regardless of any apparently notable names and other contents, show nothing for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 22:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manithara Sree Panorkavu Bhagavathy Temple[edit]

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

Article on a Hindu temple, unsourced and tagged as such since its creation in 2014. No references found in English to satisfy WP:GNG--perhaps sources can be found in Malayalam. --Finngall ^talk 03:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I note this has been G12 tagged, there's nothing else particularly convincing aside from that these are presumably known locally but not quite easy to translate and improve for an Internet English website. SwisterTwister talk 17:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've declined the G12 tag - the link given is one of the many Wikipedia mirrors on the internet, although it doesn't give any sort of attribution. This is not a copyvio of that source. Hut 8.5 21:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No source or claim of notability provided. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Critical Hour[edit]

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

Although a show on Discovery Channel, the Critical Hour lacks any citations that indicates notability. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 04:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Coaching Institute[edit]

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

Being a registered organization does not make that organization notable. Being a finalist for several awards does not make it notable either. Having the profits from a café go towards your organization also does not make it notable. There is no evidence provided that this institution is notable, and the name of the organization is so vague that I was not able to find any reliable evidence of its notability in other contexts. Article is borderline promotional from the get-go, but let's have a discussion instead, yes? What do others think and can anyone find the right kind of sources to make this article worth retaining? KDS4444 (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, fails WP:CORP. Writing style is spookily similar to the blocked Sockpuppets that wrote Sharon pearson, but an earlier SPI could find no connection. May I suggest adding Sharon Pearson to this AfD, same article creator, only notable in connection with this company, speedied twice as Sharon pearson. OnionRing (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. the Telstra Victorian Business Awards for Innovation in 2010 is hardly a major award. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. I also just requested speedy deletion of Sharon Pearson which has already been deleted twice prior to this nomination. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial awards and no actual notability. Probably a vald speedy G11 for promotionalism. The speedyon Pearson was declined byanother editor,so I've listed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Pearson. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as I myself would've asked DGG for his subject analysis as thus there'z nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 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) 06:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Australia v England Rugby League Test Series[edit]

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

Too soon, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this is for a event that does not even happen for another 2 and a half years! Wgolf (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking around, it seems the previous one is this year-but that has not happened yet either. Wgolf (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we have articles for many future sporting and non-sporting events despite the no crystal ball - the guideline says "scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". However no notability has been established here - there are no references or sources to indicate notability and only one game of a three-test series is listed. Bcp67 (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be fictional. Mattlore (talk) 03:11, 14 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. Katie^talk 12:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malayan Hymn[edit]

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

The article is about a "college hymn" of a particular college in Philippines. I see no reason why it is notable. The hymn seems to have been written by Reynaldo B. Vea and Joel Navarro in 2007. (Note that I found this in the UK archives, but it seems to be another song with the same name as the date given is 18 May 1869). -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obvious "merge and redirect" to Malayan Colleges Laguna or one of the other articles. Nominator appears to have not followed WP:BEFORE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Malayan Colleges Laguna per WP:BEFORE ~Kvng (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the material has been merged, I have no opinion about whether to delete or redirect what remains. I never felt it qualified as a stand-alone article and that's clearly the consensus here so I'm happy. Thanks again to Lemongirl942 for the save. ~Kvng (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason I listed this was because there seems to be another "Malayan Hymn" which is an older song (see this) and I do not know which is the primary topic. I don't know if it is appropriate to redirect this to the article of a private college. The only sources available for the college hymn are the college websites itself, which is not an independent secondary source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a better primary topic, just move this to Malayan Hymn (Malayan Colleges Laguna) or somesuch and put the new primary topic here. No need for deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closing Admin - I have already merged any salvageable contents to both pages (See [44], [45]) although I couldn't find any independent secondary citations for it. ~~This can be closed as a redirect and I have no particular opposition to it. (but I would still be glad if independent secondary sources can be shown).~~ Struck my comments. As information has already been merged and there are 2 possible redirect targets (of which it is not possible to verify which one is more appropriate), I think the article can be safely deleted. We don't really need the redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article must be redirected now (see WP:MAD). You definitely can't delete it. Doesn't matter what one you target it too (personally I would go with the parent article). AIRcorn (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted my merges [46],[47] as the content is unsourced. I don't see any value in keeping unverifiable content. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a crucial difference between unsourced and unverifyable. If there is nothing in the material likely to be challenged, there is no verifyability problem including it. We can also include unsourced material if we believe sources can be found. ~Kvng (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are trying to say. In this case however, I couldn't find sources except for a mention on the website which doesn't specify what "Malayan Hymn" is. In general, I do not add content to articles which cannot be supported by reliable sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see the utility of a redirect. A redirect leaves us with a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue (as noted above). It's also clear there's not enough content for an article. Considering that it's the same song for both schools (and we don't know which is the more well-known one, since they both have articles), a dab would essentially get the reader to the same information, but require an extra step to get to the school. So I think in this case we're better off not complicating the system with a redirect and letting the text search figure it out. MSJapan (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The PRIMARYTOPIC issue is a very poor reason to argue to delete. It is easily solved, if really a problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. See my response to Lemongirl942 above for details. ~Kvng (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this article is an orphan and I don't think we will lose something significant by deleting it, especially now that the (unsourced) information in the article has been added to two other articles. Secondly the problem with the redirect is that there are two targets for a redirect here. Which one do we use? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to acknowledge that those are reasonable points and I could be persuaded to change my !vote. I'm not sure whether that would be helpful or just prolong a discussion that is now basically irrelevant due to your merge edits which I thank you for. ~Kvng (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to to Malayan Colleges Laguna#Malayan Hymn. The info is already in the article so there is nothing here to merge. AIRcorn (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Choices left now Aircorn brought up an important issue at my talk page about WP:MAD. I was struggling with that as well - how to show attribution and yet remove the redirect. The problem in this particular case is that there are 2 possible redirect targets Malayan High School of Science#Malayan Hymn and Malayan Colleges Laguna#Malayan Hymn and both of them are equally plausible. To be honest, my first preference was to simply delete the article (without merging) as it is about a school song for which no secondary citations exist. But since a merge was explicitly suggested twice, I went ahead and did it. I'm not sure what can be done now, but here are some possibilities
1. Undo merge, delete Malayan Hymn as no reliable secondary citations exist for the information.
2. Convert Malayan Hymn to a dab page. Create individual redirects such as Malayan Hymn (Malayan Colleges Laguna) and Malayan Hymn (Malayan High School of Science) to add to the dab page.
3. Record history of contributors at talk pages of merge targets. Delete Malayan Hymn. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I personally prefer choice 1 as ultimately the information added does not have reliable secondary citations. Failing that, choice 3 is OK as well. I don't prefer choice 2 - maintaining a disambiguation page for a non-notable school song (for which no reliable secondary sources exist) is a bit too much. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer Lemongirl942's choice 3. Lack of secondary sources is not a reason to delete when there is an obvious merge option; and the multiplicity of merge options is a pain but not a reason to not do it. Choice 2 is overkill for something so small, and for anyone searching the wikipedia search engine will do the best job. Choice 3, for the history of contributors, I count only one substantive editor, Dhakki18 (talk · contribs). All other edits were not creastive additions requiring attribution. The second best claim for authorship is User:RJaguar3, for intelligent deletion of the copyrighted lyrics, which I would not consider sufficient. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think WP:redirects are cheap and there is little cause for confusion from redirecting to one over the other as they both have the same information. Simply redirecting the article to one of these is the easiest solution and that still remains my first choice. If you still want to go down the deletion route I would go with option 1. I do not like merging unsourced content into an article and when completing a merge unless the specific unsourced information is mentioned only concentrate on the sourced content. Another option is to undo the merge, move the page to Talk:Malayan Colleges Laguna/Malayan Hymn and then remerge the content from there into the articles. Then Malayan Hymn can be deleted, removing it from the search engines, and there is still a paper trail to follow for the editor contributions if anyone ever feels the need. I still prefer simply leaving a redirect. AIRcorn (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aircorn and Kvng Sorry, I have reverted my merges now. The content is essentially unsourced and I do not support adding unsourced content to articles. I see no value in keeping it now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then Redirect because if the current contents are there as it is, there's no particular need for this unless needed for history uses, nothing else certainly better to keep this currently as is. SwisterTwister talk 17:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your tortured English seems to have it backwards. As the content was already merged, don't delete (other WP:MAD solutions are more complex). As there is no particular need for the redirect (implied is that the search function will do better without the redirect?), the page could be moved, to Malayan Hymn (Malayan Colleges Laguna) for example, and redirected from that title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted my merge SmokeyJoe. The content is unsourced and I don't see any value in keeping it. Deleting this article seems best now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying Lemongirl. So do you consider the material "unverifiable"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for reverting the merge though. (Due to the burden of proof lying on the editor adding content, I do not add unsourced content to article as a matter of principle). I could not find any references which state "Malayan Hymn is the college hymn". A music sheet containing the name of the composers is uploaded to the website of Mapúa Institute of Technology (See [48]). Nothing states the relationship of this song to any of the institutes. If reliable sources come up in the future, someone can add it to any of the 3 college articles. But this article has no value at present. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with DAB replacement given also the 1869 reference. Aoziwe (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am tired, but I am sure you could explain that better? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the page, its contents having been merged into the two other articles, replace with a DAB page referencing the two merge recipient pages and a third reference to the 1869 instance referred to at the top of this discussion. Aoziwe (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable significant sources nor even sources to included it in another article. Spshu (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good grief this is a completely non-notable college hymn of barely notable college(s). Any cited information about it should be in that article; there certainly should not be a separate article on the college hymn. Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. On a pure "vote count", the opinions are evenly divided. However, the "keep" argument is that there is a potential for an article entitled List of companies based in Gurgaon with a different set of inclusion criteria from this article. After reviewing the current article, I find such a solution would involve replacing the vast majority of its content and I cannot see that the current content could be a foundation for such an article. As such, I am interpreting this debate as a consensus for removing this article, and I am therefore closing the discussion with a "delete" outcome. There is however no prejudice against a different article with a different title. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies in Gurgaon[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory and this list is just a maintenance nightmare. Check the history for the number of valid vs invalid changes over, say, the last 24 months. Please can we apply a bit of common sense here rather than deploy arguments such as "it doesn't have to be complete or even accurate", "someone, somewhere might find it useful", "storage is cheap" etc. Unless you are one of the people who regularly has to clean it up, you may not realise what a pain in the bum it really is. Sitush (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: could try protecting it as a less drastic option. Siuenti (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's argument fails as WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. It does need work of course, but per deletion policy at WP:ATD this should be handled through other means. Rename to List of companies based in Gurgaon and tighten its inclusion criteria to match Category:Companies based in Gurgaon, of which there are plenty to justify a list. Add a comment in the source code that only companies with articles or with a RS that indicates notability will be permitted. Protect as necessary. postdlf (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Has that not been tried? I know the old chestnut that every category is entitled to a list etc but it is bollocks, sorry, and the inclusion criteria for the category is effectively unpatrolled anyway. "Based" is a highly subjective word in itself - "based" as in headquarters or as in having a presence? While the cat is clear as to meaning, the reality probably differs (I am not checking all 55, just going off my memory of past checks). Adding comments to the source or even a box at the top of the edit window achieves nothing when it comes to articles relating to India - we see this time and again, and it is a constant reiteration of edit summaries such as "see WP:NLIST and WP:V". I despair of lists of this type, which do-gooders come out to support in deletion discussions but very rarely seem to maintain before or after - the same has happened with lists relating to castes and clans and, yes, it is muggins here who takes the flak because everyone else walks away. Sorry for venting but this really does get my goat. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The page has never been protected before, but I don't even know it rates page protection given the slow rate of inappropriate additions, let alone deletion contra WP:NOTCLEANUP. Maybe you just need to walk away from it if you're getting so heated and let other editors worry about it. postdlf (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I do put my money where my mouth is; after contributing to the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hotels in the Philippines (2nd nomination) I not only cleaned up the page but have helped maintain it since despite having no history with the page or interest in the topic, so don't let lack of faith in other editors guide your actions here (nor should WP:NOEFFORT, however). I'm happy to watchlist this one as well and help revert any nonnotable entries. postdlf (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename to List of companies based in Gurgaon and tighten the article as suggested by Postdlf above. Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Companies based in Gurgaon. Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTYELLOW. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as these articles are always vulnerable to advertising, non-notable and otherwise unacceptable and unmaintained lists thus nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have a great man ysucharticles, mostly unchallenged; it's an accepted type of articles. Problems can be dealt with. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE. Maybe we should get rid of all the others also if they are experiencing the same problems. It's crap and it is contrary to policy etc, especially NOTDIR. The people voting to keep here practically never get involved in Indic articles, except perhaps for DGG who certainly had an ill-informed spree of de-PRODing some time ago that ultimately resulted in a complete waste of time at AfD (where the things were indeed deleted). In fact, if this is kept I may quite pointily make the maintenance nightmare 500 times worse, literally, by creating similar lists for that many other Indian locales. Why should I or anyone else dedicated to one of the most wild topic areas give a shit any more? - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you guys really need to try to get them protected. If that's against current guidelines try to fix them. Siuenti (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EnterpriseBuilder[edit]

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

Unremarkable software/organization, borderline promotion. Acroterion (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this were a business,it w ould be a clear A7. But since its worded as a article on a productfiuce, we have to deal with it a with it here. noindication of significance, let alone notability DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a product of a non-notable Malaysian company. No independent sources exist for verification. No claim of significance. Fails WP:GNG by a mile. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not demonstrated. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also concur with DGG with that this is basically A7 material, nothing at all minimally convincing and thus nothing else to suggest it can be kept with such questionability. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 15 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 Bagrationi_dynasty#Origins. Clear consensus against keeping. I'm not sure if there's truly a consensus to redirect here, but it was mentioned a few times, seems harmless, and is in keeping with WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the Bagratid dynasties[edit]

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

This poorly referenced and incoherent article is unnecessary. It adds nothing new to the discussion of dynastic origin that is not already covered under the Origins subsection of the main dynasty article. In fact, the few properly referenced portions of the nominated page concern biblical origin theories, which essentially replicates Claim of the biblical descent of the Bagrationi dynasty. When stripped of unsourced material, the nominated article would at best merit a redirect to the corresponding subsection of Bagrationi.

This page was nominated for deletion earlier this year but kept because a user thought that "This article has room for improvement". Unfortunately, the user is rarely active on wikipedia and has made no effort to change anything. The original author of the article was notified many months ago to see if an expansion was possible, but he did not show interest either. I personally don't see how this page can or should be salvaged, the other articles already provide a better overview.--Damianmx (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing to add Damianmx's arguments are good.--g. balaxaZe★ 17:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as a likely WP:POVFORK. I don't understand why long-term users have been protecting this content. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see no advancement on the delete opinions expressed in the previous AfD, so I will repeat the keep reasoning I gave in that previous AfD. An article titled "origin of ...." can hardly be called unnecessary because the origin of any ruling dynasty forms an essential part of the study of that dynasty. There are plenty of sources that have content on the Bagratuni / Bagrationi origins. The article deals with the common origin of both the Bagratuni and Bagrationi branches, and possible expansion could include content on its other branches too (there were more than just two). Of course the Bagratuni dynasty and Bagrationi dynasty articles will have content that is duplicated in this article, but this article can explore the subject in more detail, detail not appropriate for these other articles (which cover a far wider time scale). The proposer's argument, that it all should go into the Bagrationi article (the Georgian branch of the dynasty), appears nationalistically pov since it will have the effect of disenfranchising the Bagratuni from its history. The proposer's assertion that the Bagrationi dynasty is the "main dynasty" is incorrect, the senior dynasty is actually the Bagratuni. "The Armenian familiar label Bagratuni and the Georgian forms Bagratuniani and subsequently Bagrationi (which helped to obscure the family's Armenian ancestry) denote the house of/established by Bag[a]rat" - S. H. Rapp, Recovering the Pre-National Caucasian Landscape, p40. Retaining this article is the neutral option. "Article could have been improved months ago but it hasn't been - so it should be deleted" is not a valid argument for deletion. If it had the potential then, it still has it now. Neither is an unreasoned WP:povFork claim. Chris troutman, what do you consider it to be a fork of and in what way is it a pov one? I can't speak for other longterm users, but this one recognizes it as an entirely legitimate topic to have an article on. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tiptoethrutheminefield: This article leads like so many imaginative nationalistic faerie tales to me. The other articles that discuss this topic are both better sourced and better written. I don't have a dog in this fight. I think an unfinished house is a real problem, too, so I'd support userfication rather than keep this eyesore visible assuming there was content here worth saving. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To actually claim that the existence of the Bagratid dynasty - the most important, longest lasting, and furthest reaching dynasty to have existed in the southern Caucasus - is an "imaginative nationalistic faerie tale" is a rather impressive display of ignorance. Remember, you are not advocating rewriting or removing problematic content from the article - you have opinioned delete for the actual subject. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. An article, even if about a real subject, if based on un-reliable sources and written from a POV, shouldn't be retained per WP:NUKEANDPAVE. The fact that this article re-creates existing content removes any argument for retention. If, perhaps, you're a partisan I don't blame you for disagreeing. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the content in question predates ALL other articles as user Kober originally created it within this article.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, if anything is a POVFORK it is the other two articles! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Chris Troutman's "partisan" comment, I am not defending ANY of the current content (except the short paragraph I added recently) - I am defending the subject, Origin of the Bagratid dynasties, as being worthy of having a stand-alone article. WP:NUKEANDPAVE, an essay not policy, is about deleting article content not deleting articles. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to start a new draft if you think this subject can be responsibly covered. From the present article I don't think that's so. For that reason, I can't !vote keep on the logic that the subject might be notable but we have neither appropriate content nor sourcing for same. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The second paragraph can be copied into the Bagratuni dynasty page. The rest of it is either uncited or already covered in the longer article about the Bagrationi claim. – Fayenatic London 07:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not in good shape but that's no excuse for deletion since other related articles don't cover the topic in detail and a single article is needed to elaborate on Bagratunis and Bagrations. The Biblical origins article is useless, it should be merged into this one. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't the proposer of this AfD proposed the deletion of the Biblical origins article? Why does he want it kept? I made the point on the last AfD that it would be a ludicrous situation to have deleted this article, about a legitimate subject with legitimate content, and kept the crazy Biblical origins one. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary as there are allready two articles that include the respective origin claims. This topic has been a subject of flaming for years now. While I certainly stand to facts and won't dismiss academic research the article - and as a matter of fact all the debates revolving around this are highly POV stained, almost a phenomenon. Claims wise it is also weirdly one sided considering the fact that the Georgian branch ( if there really were historicaly two ) existed much longer and has a recorded history. Tourmanoff's research is being repeatedly used as the opinion of "many modern scholars" yet he is the primary and only source for said claim. The same applies to the dismissal of Georgian claims on the dynasty - many modern scholars < no sources for that. Sounds more like personal opinon. I also don't see how completly dismissing the Georgian version originating from actual medieval chronicles is a deal at all - even when some of those claims go as far as biblical origins. The others do not. I think it would only aggravate the dispute. Especialy the guaranteed individual POV edits TheMightyGeneral (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "respective origin claims" of the two branches are myths, self-created when they became powerful and needed to justify their authority by inventing an illustrious pedigree. All the acceptable sources agree on that. I do not know what sources you are seeing that claim the Geogian branch is older. I have given you a quote by the most notable scholar currently working in the field, Rapp, who is nether Armenian or Georgian, and who unambiguously states that the dynasty's origin is in Armenia. We have two branches of the same dynasty - there are articles about the two branches containing content about the various individual rulers over many centuries, but this article is (or should be when it is improved) about the actual historical origin of the dynasty. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we are objetive and real on this issue you can't simply use just one academician's research with background - which sources are then re-used in other research - and completly dismiss actual chronicles. For example, where is it originaly written or claimed that it was all made up ? - the research mainly speculates on that. If there are no sources to confirm those are yet more claims that can just as well be discarded as simple myths. Latter is usualy more common when lack of actual historical material to work with in order to validate. "All the acceptable sources" - are primarily ones, actual texts and illustrations from the respective period. Georgian ones do provide that information to some extent, not regarding the biblical origins. Wheter it was "self-created" or not is a bold statement considering no such claims exist and the "Georgian" dynesty never shifted. But even then, a common root can be considered, due to the name itself. But that also is a matter of discussion. It is noteworthy that besides Tourmanoff there are only sources present that utilize him as source in their own research. Maybe some modern Georgian research could provide a little clarification. It would most certainly provide more balance on the issue.TheMightyGeneral (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that TheMightyGeneral was canvased to be here by the AfD's proposer [49], and that the proposer has also now been blocked as a sock puppet of a blocked user. This is not a criticism of TheMightyGeneral, just that the invitation has the perception of skewing the overall opinion - an Afd proposer is hardly likely to invite someone he knew would oppose the deletion Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That is true, but on the other hand if I saw this on my own I'd still see this article as rather damaging if the POV edits won't cease. Besides and please don't take this personaly, but you also don't seem to be the most settle person around here. Best regardsTheMightyGeneral (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This discussion might be a part to new article about so called Armenian obsession with Armenization of everything. I found very boring to read in almost all article on Georgian culture or history phrase "Origin is disputed among scholars". It looks like these words are copied by Armenian authors to every article and as the rule lacks of sources, arguments etc. Wikipeople please take more attention to such behavior. And let's study this phenomenon in separated article. Search word Armenianizm in google, epecially in Russian website, and you will find surprising "facts" that Georgian alphabet was initially armenian, that Shota Rustaveli is Ashot Rustavelian, President Saakashvili is Saakian, Tbilisi is Armenian city, Princess Diana was Armenian, etc.. Please delete and close this topic. Armenian users please read "The Life and Tale of the Bagratids the history of the Bagrationi dynasty of Georgia from the beginnings until c. 1030. by Sumbat Davitis Dze" ZviadPochkhua (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor should keep his nationalist diatribes to himself. Nothing expressed in the above is a valid contribution to an AfD discussion. However, it does show the pov reasons behind some of the delete arguments. He actually cites the 11thC text that invented the Bagrationi branch's mythological origin as if it were detailing true history! Retaining this article is the only neutral option. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this article is most like based on self research and it does not fit to main articles of Bagratuni and Bagrationi dynasties. even if there are some ties between them, it must be noted only in main articles. --Georgiano (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, surprise no surprise, up pops yet another editor whose spends his time on Wikipedia inserting Georgian nationalist propaganda into articles, such as Speri (historical region). However, if the content of this article "does not fit to main articles of Bagratuni and Bagrationi dynasties" this is a reason why it should be kept! There is no "self-research" in the basic historical fact that the Bagratid dynasties had an origin, and many sources have written about that origin. Of course the reason Georgiano wants this article deleted is that it goes against current Georgian nationalist propaganda that there is no connection between the Bagratuni and Bagrationi and the fanciful medieval faking of the origin of the Bagrationi is based on truth - despite the fact that all credible sources clearly and unambiguously state they share the same origin and dismiss the mythical origins of both branches of the dynasty. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoethrutheminefield please define what you call Georgian nationalist propaganda? And when you say this you have to prove (and not with your subjective view). In other case it is simply slander.--g. balaxaZe★ 13:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to cite sources that state that content like what Georgiano has been adding to articles derives from Georgian historiography created by pseudo-historians who consider that history should follow current political ideology, and that such pseudo-history is very common in Georgia right now? I have already quoted Rapp who states that the name Bagrationi arose to help obscure the dynasty's Armenian ancestry. The Speri (historical region), created by Georgiano, is full of bizzare contradictions as crude Georgian pseudo-history is combined with legitimate content. It is an "historical Georgian region" we are boldly told in its lede, yet there is content correctly stating that in the fifth century "Armenia was divided between Byzantine and Sassanian Empire, the western part of Armenia, including Speri was under Byzantine control". In it we content stating that Ispir was a Bagrationi possession, yet I can present non-Georgian sources stating that it was actually "a Bagratid domain in the fourth to sixth centuries" and that their domain in Speri included Bayburt which is well outside the claimed "historical Georgian region" (see Sinclair, Eastern Turkey, vol 1, p275). Rapp (in "Recovering the Pre-National Caucasian landscape", p13-15) writes "as a specialist in pre-modern Caucasia .... I have been struck by the persistent telescoping of modern configurations of identity, attitudes, and rivalries back into the remote past, a condition which plaques the historical discipline as a whole" and "The Armenian, Georgian, and Azerbaijani (narrative) varieties are as sophisticated as they are self contained" and "all share an explicit political purpose - they seek to validate and exercise political sovereignty". I suggest it is the desire to maintain that self containment that lies behind this AfD request, have two completely separate self-contained articles and no third article detailing the common origin of the subjects of the two articles. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and the Redirect if needed as the consensus seems to mention this is still questionable for its own article and I also see this thus Delete. SwisterTwister talk 17:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bismarck Waine[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and, likely, WP:BIO. Google finds nothing, other than this article, with this name in it. I also tried "Bismark Waine", "Bismarck Wayne", and "Bismark Wayne", and came up only with people who aren't in Michigan. Largoplazo (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject has zero coverage in reliable sources or even webpages for that matter. Meatsgains (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a possible hoax as no sources at all could be found; fails WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources could be found for this subject after a thorough google search. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 12:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - As @Comatmebro: no sources can be found except nor any data available. Might be created by a person related to the person. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 15:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Indeed, the complete lack of coverage raises concern that his may be a WP:HOAX. Cbl62 (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is not a well-known person in south-east Michigan news circles, as a south-east Michigan resident I am sure of that. However with nothing coming up with a google search, I suspect this is either a hoax, or "local newspapers" is really he was published in two high school papers. Something is odd that nothing is coming up in google searches. Maybe he writes letters to the editor. Even that seems a bit suspect with absolute nothing turning up. Unless he is not as contemporary as the article makes him seem, turning up absolutely nothing in a google search seems odd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 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 speedily deleted as G7---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of resource exhaustion attack tools[edit]

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

This article is of very low quality and most of the examples it lists probably aren't notable. I originally created this article to remove someone else's dubious additions from resource exhaustion attack, another article I wrote. I regret doing this, and I think this one should be deleted. Risc64 (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was no consensus, voters did not agree whether he passes WP:GNG (it seems to be consensus that he fails WP:PROF).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Levey[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, which makes no claim of notability for anything except the fact of his existence and which is sourced exclusively to a directory of his contributions on the website of a publication he contributes to -- thus constituting a primary source. As always, a person does not get a Wikipedia article by having an "our contributors" profile on the website of a media outlet he writes for -- he gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of coverage in media outlets he doesn't write for. But I can't find any significant coverage of the type demanded by WP:GNG; I get a lot of glancing namechecks of his existence, but nothing in the realm of substantive coverage about him. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 04:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 04:20, 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 02:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly ~~Probably~~ keep Just added an article about the book he wrote, reliable source. There's probably more to add.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC) typed his book into a google news search and BINGO [50]. Lots of sources. Article needs, expand, sourcing. User:Bearcat, You wanna rethink this one?E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some IP address took the book and a University teaching appointment out of the article years ago. [51]. Vandalism; its a problem.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend Speedy Keeping this one; turns out there was a 2nd book, that got reviewed, covered. I haven't added it yet. Did add his co-founding of a successful company Figure 1. His Professor job. Still needs expanding. User:Bearcat, this brief, unsourced page sure looked like an obvious delete. I just thought I'd check if he had the kind of brief articles about his reporting, various jobs that some journalists have. Never expected this level of coverage. Remarkable, isn't it, the way non-notable people write themselves Wikipedia pages, but successful ones with lots of substantive accomplishments rarely do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as there's nothing, certainly, for notability at WP:PROF and then there's nothing to suggest the needed solid independent notability as an author either. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnotable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting. Went to the page and did a minor expand, rewrite, sourcing - more oculd be done. However, I think editors looking at the page will see the both of his books garnered reviews in major media; he was interviewed as an author in Haaretz and profiles as an author on Voice of America; he had a magazine essay that hit a nerve and became the topic of a public conversation in Canada (his home country); and his bluelinked startup has been the subject of both business media coverage and color stories. There's more that could be added. I don't want to overstuff the page - he's young, I suspect that there will be more. Just, there seems to be more than enough to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per a review of available sources about the subject, he comfortably passes WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR criteria #3. Source examples are listed below. Thanks to E.M.Gregory for revisiting the discussion and improving the article, and pinging Bearcat, SwisterTwister and Johnpacklambert to also revisit in light of sources that have been presented here and added to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Jerusalem Post
The Globe and Mail
Voice of America
The New York Times
Jewish Book Council
Christian Science Monitor
Financial Post
The Canadian Jewish News
The Canadian Jewish News
Jewish Telegraphic Agency
Canadian Business
Jewish News Weekly

Keep Seems much more notable and influential than many of the music groups and horse jockeys and unnamed will never hit the earth asteriods we have articles on. Aoziwe (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is an argument for deleting those other articles, not keeping this one. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis table arab clubs championship[edit]

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

Straight copy and paste from Arabic wiki. Fails WP:SPORTS, no reason as to why this is notable. Nordic Dragon 12:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable championship lacking coverage and significance in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources so therefore fails WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:11, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of churches in Navi Mumbai[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR. PROD removed by an IP without giving any reason. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the history, it's easy to see why. Proposed deletion was challenged six years ago. Proposed deletion is propose once, and once only. Uncle G (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't go 6 years back. And I guess nor did the IP who removed it this time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article is worth, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation in an encyclopedic format. Lists of places of worship have a place on Wikipedia, but not in the format that this one is in - q.v. List of places of worship in Tonbridge and Malling. Mjroots (talk) 15:46, 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 I know that this was just relisted, but a look at the page shows that this is at worst a hoax and at best it's something that a group of people came up with one day as a fan animation series. It's not an official part of either Real Housewives or YoWorld in the slightest. It's pretty much the equivalent of someone logging onto Minecraft and making a replica of the Starship Enterprise and making a fan series. In other words, this is essentially fanfiction. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Housewives Of Yoworld[edit]

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

The article makes a number of big claims, but in the end, it does not appear to be a notable web series. A merge to either The Real Housewives or YoWorld does not seem possible given this "series" (of which no episodes have not yet been released, only teasers) has no coverge whatsoever in reliable sources. This could also be speedily deleted as a hoax: the claim is that the "series" is a collaboration of some kind, but a search reveals that no such collaboration exists, except maybe in the minds of the series' creator. To give an idea of how unremarkable this is, the teasers all have around 1000 views or less, and the "series" creator's channel has less than 20 subscribers. I had tagged this for speedy deletion two weeks ago under A7, but this was declined by Adam9007; a subsequent PROD by the same user was removed by Kvng on the grounds that a merge can be considered (which, as I mentioned earlier, is not feasible). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to verify based on contents or searches, WP:TOOSOON. ~Kvng (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This really got to a re-list?! C'mon, the "camera setup" is Bandicam, which just exists to screen capture things like GoAnimate grounded videos for free and post them to YouTube. Minutely doubtful Bravo would license their property to a low-popularity Facebook game and this seems like the creation of some insular group of kids that just got around to starting a project they drafted during winter break but never got to until now. No merge either, this is one group's creation. Nate • (chatter) 05:54, 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 merge and redirect. The only thing to merge is the track listing, and I do not see anybody explicitly objecting moving this info to the parent article. Redirect is always preferable to deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Single + Remix Collections[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. No coverage, no reviews. The sources in the article aren't RS. MSJapan (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Whilst I agree that the album is not inherently notable, the band that released it is, so it would probably be better if it were merged into the bands page and then ""deleted"" --Joseon Empire (talk) 19:43, 03 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Anamanaguchi § Compilation albums, to improve the latter article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing actual to merge, they are all the same contents, nothing else different and thus if tagged for merge, this will either stay like that or simply be redirected which anyone could've made. Thus there's nothing actually considerable to merge. SwisterTwister talk 18:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The merge target I suggested above (Anamanaguchi § Compilation albums) presently only has the name of the album on the page and the date of release, and nothing else (verbatim: "Single + Remix Collections (2012)"). It's unclear how one could assess this as that "they are all the same contents", because plainly put, the content is not identical whatsoever, not by a long shot. Was the merge target suggested even viewed? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @SwisterTwister: – Perhaps this is an error duplicate copy/paste !vote from another discussion, or of your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Supply (EP), which is verbatim to this one. However, the assessment there is also incorrect relative to the content of the two pages. The !votes in this and the other discussion are only one minute apart. Requesting clarification; perhaps an error occurred? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It not an "error" or "copy and paste", no. SwisterTwister talk 22:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move content under its entry in the band's article. (Why did not some justly boldly do it ?) Aoziwe (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see now too ditto North America above. Aoziwe (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Anamanaguchi#2006.E2.80.932009:_Power_Supply_and_Dawn_Metropolis. Clear consensus to not keep, but all over the map on various alternatives on the delete/merge/redirect spectrum. Redirect seems like a reasonable middle ground. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Metropolis[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS, as it doesn't inherit notability from having a track as a podcast theme song. No reviews, no press. Released on an indie label. No evidence of radio rotation. MSJapan (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Whilst I agree that the album is not inherently notable, the band that released it is, so it would probably be better if it were merged into the bands page and then ""deleted"" --Joseon Empire (talk) 19:40, 03 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anamanaguchi § 2006–2009: Power Supply and Dawn Metropolis, which already has content about this album. This is a viable search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the Redirect as there's nothing particularly outstanding to merge if all contenst are merged there as it is, simply delete at best since there's nothing comparably different. SwisterTwister talk 18:02, 16 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:NOQUORUM, soft delete. Should the film start shooting or significant coverage in reliable sources are found, request that the page be restored at WP:Requests for undeletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purgatory (2016 film)[edit]

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

Like Jeepers Creepers 3 and The Old Hag Syndrome, there are no reliable sources to confirm that the film has commenced principal photography. As stated in WP:NFF, this film should not have its own article; at least not yet anyways. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Victor Salva or delete. There's an announcement in The Hollywood Reporter (among other sites), but there doesn't seem to be any confirmation that shooting ever started. Moving to draft space would also be alright, I suppose. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as there's particularly nothing suggesting this will in fact be independently notable, nothing else convincing yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 17:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:38, 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 merge and redirect to List of Australian Ambassadors to Russia § Ambassadors to Kazakhstan. This solves all the problems outlined in the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Ambassadors to Kazakhstan[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. the sources merely confirm the ambassador held the position and mostly the have been based in Moscow. Australia only operated an embassy for 4 years so basing an article on 2 non notable ambassadors in a 4 year period is stretching it. Let's see if the usual suspect turns up with WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument. LibStar (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per LISTN, "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.". While Ambassadors per se themselves are notable, this list provides unique information, given its niche position in history books. Thus, it does fulfil a recognised information purpose. Xender Lourdes (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Many have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Also Per LISTN above, it is clear that an informational purpose is fulfilled in this page, as it is with others. The nominator seems to be confusing the point of lists versus actual biography pages for individual ambassadors.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

striking vote as user has changed to delete. LibStar (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

as per LISTN, One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources there is no such coverage reflecting this . Many of the sources referring to the ambassador based in Moscow do not even mention Kazakhstan. LibStar (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I would be prepared to support deletion and merge with the info on this page merged into the List of Australian Ambassadors to Russia page. That seems to be the best course of action in this case, and could be easily combined there.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per Grahamec. This is just another Ambassador of Country X to Country Y cookie-cutter article and all that would be required is a note at List of Australian Ambassadors to Russia, and that would not even really amount to a merge. Reyk _YO! 07:38, 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 17:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now changing my vote to a speedy Delete. I have now merged the relevant information worth keeping into the List of Australian Ambassadors to Russia. This page is now unnecessary.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a list article adequately supported by references. If content was merged to List of Australian Ambassadors to Russia then deleting will be a copyright infringement, so history would need to be kept. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

references are all primary sources. LibStar (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as there's enough to suggest this, there's nothing particularly outstanding to suggest currently better improvements and the other article is sufficient to link instead of having a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 18:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finish Merge to List of Australian Ambassadors to Russia § Ambassadors to Kazakhstan, which will improve the target article and benefit Wikipedia's readers with verified content. A merge was essentially already performed by Siegfried Nugent (diff), but for whatever reason, the Ambassadors resident in Moscow, Russia section was not merged. At the least, this should be redirected, to enable merge completion by retaining content in the page's Revision history. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unication Co., Ltd.[edit]

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

non notable company. I consider this an A7, but the delettion was decline by another editor. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also strongly concur with A7 and G11, nothing at all for any minimal basic notability here, there's nothing surprisingly outstanding to suggest anything for Wikipedia at all. Fortunately we are now armed with G4 for the future, SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think this is in A7/G11 territory also. shoy (reactions) 15:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A firm going about its business but nothing in the article or found in my searches indicates notability. AllyD (talk) 06:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A company which produces pagers, but nothing particularly notable about it. I found an examiner.com review about one of its pagers (cannot link due to spam blacklist), but the company as a whole seems to have little to no coverage. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:20, 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. Certainly a remarkable individual, but the delete votes are policy-based, whereas the keep votes are not and likely come from a COI editor.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles L. Deibert[edit]

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

DSC alone is not enough for notability and there's nothing else--his political appointment is a state appointment only and is quite minor.

The article is essentially a long personal tribute. Based on the contents, it may possibly written by a close relative. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Charles L. Deibert is a military historical figure responsible for saving countless lives, and is (four times reappointed) Oregon Civilian Aide to the Secretary of the Army (CASA); In addition of its historical and military significance, this article has multiple, verifiable references directly supporting it's substantive applicability for encyclopedic inclusion. The significance of Deibert's role in the Vietnam battle, as well as the Oregon National Guard Operations Facility, are notable beyond compare for inclusion as encyclopedic information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedcarrollauthor (talk • contribs) 00:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would appear there is a conflict of interest situation, since the article's original editor, Tedcarrollauthor, has cited personal correspondence with Deibert as a source. —C.Fred (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to C.Fred's comment (above) The "personal correspondence with Deibert as a source" is inaccurate. Deibert, himself, was not a source; in fact, the personal emails that C.Fred refers to are !) McCluskey and 2) Clinch. The fact should be noted that these sources are used either, a) as Clinch is, for example, referenced as a secondary source regarding John Clarke and Deibert's historical/hereditary ties that support encyclopedic validity (and thus, one of various, notable reasons for Wiki inclusion--which clearly is contrary to any pro-deletion claims on this page). Further, it is of paramount significance that NEITHER CLINCH NOR MCCLUSKEY ARE STAND-ALONE SOURCES--RATHER BOTH ARE USED AS CONVENIENTLY INCIDENTAL ADDENDA; TELLINGLY, NEITHER SOURCE-IN-QUESTION IS USED FOR SOLE SUPPORT. IN FACT, ONE OR BOTH THE MCCLUSKEY AND CLINCH SOURCES MAY BE CONFIDENTLY EXCLUDED FROM THE PAGE, NOT WEAKENING THE CREDIBILITY NOR NOTABILITY OF ITS ENCYCLOPEDIC (AND OTHERWISE) NOTABLE SOUNDNESS. Certainly, C.Fred (or anyone else) may remove one or both of these sources (Clinch, McCluskey) and the argument disappears. This fact alone strengthens my position to keep the notable Charles L. Deibert page as notable, valid, reliable, accurate, and worthy of encyclopedic inclusion based on historical, social, military, national, and international significance. [note, please consider the "CAPS" as emphasis only; in other words, the intention is not to "shout," just intending the text to stand out for this page's discussion. Thanks you!] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.41.166 (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nobody's personal e-mail is a reliable source for anything at all on Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I waited before commenting to see if anyone could help it, but considering the article is considerably puffed and not easily comprehensible to suggest a salvageable article, there's nothing to therefore suggesting keeping for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: an admirable individual no doubt, but I don't believe they meet the encyclopedia's notability requirements. The reliance on emails and youtube links serve as red flags for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essentially, this is original research. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 22:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dot15926[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this ontology editor, whose development apparently ended in 2015. The references given were all (I think) written by the author of the software, and a Google search (on both "dot15926" and ".15926") doesn't find anything else substantial about this software. Yaron K. (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What are the notability criteria used? The article is augmented with the references to the use in the project of the leading industry consortium developing the ontology standards for the process industry. The repository for the software code is alive and periodically cloned, the software is supported by the authors. Vic5784 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the General notability guideline, a topic is notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I don't see any evidence so far of independent coverage. Yaron K. (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two references to unaffiliated entities were included on the page. One leads to FIATECH consortium report and another to the Aucotec software company. Both are using the software in question, referencing it in their publications. Vic5784 (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches do not show any indication of notability, my search results were the same as ][u|Yaron K.]]'s, nothing found. Fails WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches have simply found nothing better at all, the article is nothing at all suggestive of better. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 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. And not the satellite of Io. czar 16:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite.io[edit]

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

A7 declined by another ed. as out of scope, but this is web content. No indication of notability DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and this actually sounds familiar as if it may have been AFD'd before but I'm currently unable to find a link, certainly nothing convincing here for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:20, 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 01:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A random non-notable game for which no reliable secondary sources exist. Forget notability, there is no credible claim of significance here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:40, 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 merge to Frog Fractions . Opinion split evenly between delete, keep, and merge. Merge is ~~something of a wimpout~~ a highly rational middle ground. If, as the keepers suggest, this really is a thing, it will attract the required coverage and it can be split back out it its own article at that time. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frog Fractions 2[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL -- browser game still under development / The references seem to be about another game, claimed to be the inspiration for this one. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing yet suggesting the needed solidity to confirm notability, there's news but it basically says the same thing, not yet notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to the article, and the references, it is not clear that the game is under development-- it could very well be finished, and be playable, right now. There is cited extensive media coverage directly about the fact that this game may or may not currently exist, if people could just find it (via ARG). This is sufficient notability for me. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply, since the effort to find the game is current and ongoing. From the references, this appears similarly notable to, for example, I Love Bees... perhaps not covered quite as much, but in my opinion, the coverage threshold has been met. Fieari (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Supported by quite a lot of reliable sources, including [52][53][54] and the first three sources in the article. It passes WP:GNG, and some of the sources (Wired and Polygon) have quite a lot of information about the game. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Still under development? You're mistaken User:DGG, you are playing Frog Fractions 2 right now.[55] - hahnch e n 22:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Frog Fractions#Sequel for the time being. If the page undergoes expansion in the future it can be split off again at a later date. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 06:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or Keep): As above, multiple game/tech press references. - BalthCat (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge until the game is actually released. Right now it's just a confusing mess about an ARG. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Frog Fractions until released. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:18, 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinna Cinema[edit]

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

Inadequte evidence of notability: Indian newspapers print film reviews on the basis of whether they are paid for doing so, and are not reliable sources for notability. I think it this field we need to go by national level awards or by recognition outside India DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking beyondthe article:

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Chinna Cinema AK Kambhampati Komal Jha Arjun Kalyaan Praveen Lakkaraju

Keep per meeting WP:NF, even if only to India. And sorry DGG, awards are not needed to assure notability and we do not need non-Indian sources to cover an Indian topic... as notable "just to India" is fine, and despite questioning why they choose to cover a topic, not all Indian media reliable sources are bad. Authored articles toward the film's production in Filmibeat, Times of India, Sify (1), Sify (2), Sify (3), and are suitable as sources to show WP:NF as met... even for a film that was generally panned. Article DOES need work and use of available sources, but that seems do-able. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Idea that Indian newspapers cannot be used for notability of Indian films is wholly incorrect and without foundation. AusLondonder (talk) 23:19, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drake Caggiula[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Undrafted college player of no particular accomplishments, the article doesn't merely falsely assert that the subject plays for the Edmonton Oilers, he was never drafted. Fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Article created by User talk:Drizzy85, whose talk page is studded by several dozen notifications of CSDs, prodding and AfDs of a raft of unreferenced one-sentence sub-stub creations. Ravenswing 09:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although he was not drafted and has not yet played for Edmonton, he became a star his senior year, won the Frozen Four MVP award and has received significant coverage, far more than routine coverage that would typically attach to a run of the mill free agent signing. For example [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]. There is also this which admittedly is not secondary coverage, but ncaa.com doesn't do features on just any college athlete. And an interview here. And lots of more minor coverage from various places. Obviously the article needs improvement though. Rlendog (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Rlendog - meets the GNG. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 13:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 17:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fast Samat lib (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason? Rlendog (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:JUSTAVOTE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He obviously fails WP:NHOCKEY, it looks as though there is just enough for a WP:GNG pass based on three of the articles listed above numbered 1,2 and 7; all of the other articles are just routine in nature. Deadman137 (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft instead as a compromise as there are still questionable signs for this article as its own and although there are apparent awarding achievements and such, the current article still insinuates nothing to currently accept and improve. SwisterTwister talk 18:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. These sources provide significant coverage about the subject well beyond routine-style sports coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Sports Network
The Sports Network
CBC.ca
Vancouver Sun

Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Rlendog's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of bowlers with 5 or more ten-wicket hauls in Test cricket[edit]

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

An other sock creation with questionable notability. 5 ten-wicket hauls seems like an very arbitrary number and what says this is notable? This is just an other list (among many others) from ESPN Cricinfo without evidence of widespread notability to pass WP:GNG Qed237 (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Number of 10 wicket hauls at the highest level is definitely an indicator of ability over a long time . Both muttiah and Shane would get coverage for being prolific 10 wicket haul takers. Eg [64] or [65] LibStar (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Completely arbitrary threshold, Wikipedia is not a statistics database. There are at least two other websites (CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo) devoted to these statistics, there is no need to duplicate that information. IgnorantArmies (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a ten-wicket haul is a very significant thing to happen in a match and to get five in a career is a very significant thing. When someone gets one 10-wicket haul it is well reported and getting five is well reported. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC) Delete, after reading the opinions below, I now agree that this is a case of an arbitrary threshold which fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to me the threshold is arbitrary which is the key. I can't find any generally accepted number of 10wm which is considered inherently notable so it's a clear delete for me. Note that this is not suggesting that a 10wm isn't notable at all - it is. But it's the number of times that seems to be arbitrary unless someone can show me where it is "well reported" in itself. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – ten-wicket match hauls, while often included on a player's statistical line, are a secondary statistic that tend not to get significant coverage in their own right – certainly not to the extent that overall wickets or five-wicket innings hauls gets. This, coupled with Blue Square Thing's comment that the threshold is arbitrary, makes this a clear delete for me. Aspirex (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I support the view that a ten-wicket haul is a significant feat - for a bowler it's akin to a batsman scoring a century. Like several other commenters my objection here is an arbitrary threshold. There is no special significance in a bowler taking five 10wm's as opposed to any other number. Bcp67 (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 10-wicket hauls are a feat, but the figure is arbitrary. Do any actual reliable sources make reference to the ampunt of 10wm that cricketers have? Think answer is no. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of longest rivers of the United States (by main stem) too, it has a completely arbitrary 500m cutoff. Siuenti (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The user (sock of a previously blocked account) is known for creating such lists based on arbitrary threshold. —Vensatry _(talk) 03:43, 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 merge to Loyola University Maryland. Opinion is divided between delete and merge. Giving the nod to merge per WP:ATD. Inasmuch as there is consensus to merge, we just need to select the most significant facts, not a wholesale import of everything. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Community Service and Justice[edit]

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

Non-notable centre, already covered in the main article Loyola University Maryland. There is a small amount of material to merge, but overall this calls for a delete. References provided and available do not meet WP:ORG. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As to more external sources, I added three, one showing Loyola's ranking among the top 25 US colleges and universities in the country for service learning. I suggest what is succinctly expressed here is worthy of note and would be an unwieldy addition to the already long article on Loyola University Maryland.Jzsj (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per other tag. This seems to be a university department. I do not think we can have articles on every university research center. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jbh ^Talk 14:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Clearly every research center and service center within a university cannot be listed separately, but like athletics and alumni they may better be covered separately if they are especially notable and worthy of coverage that would unbalance the main article.Jzsj (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate keep !vote--further comments are always welcome, but ony one !vote per customer. --Finngall ^talk 16:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and overly promotional. No additional sources found to show that this org is notable independently of the university, reads like an advert rather than an encyclopedia article. --Finngall ^talk 16:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest independent notability from the school itself, nothing to suggest the needed solidity at this time. It's only a university-based center, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge – as also suggested and tagged on 23 May 2016 (diff) by HappyValleyEditor, to Loyola University Maryland, which will improve the latter article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 16 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 drafify. There is clear consensus here that the available sources do not justify a stand-alone article. And, while there's more arguments for an outright delete then for any of the WP:ATD possibilities, I think we're shy of a real delete consensus. Given that it's already been discussed for almost a month, another relist doesn't seem like the right plan.

So, I'm going to move this to draft. If anybody feels they want to merge information from the draft into Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Lilongwe, no objection to that. Also, if somebody feels strongly that the draft has no hope of progressing, there's also no objection to bringing the draft back to AfD (or, whatever XfD is the right place for drafts) for another look. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit Centre for Ecology and Development[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Another in the dozens of Jesuit centres strteam of articles that are largely based on thin notability and a web of interrelated self-published sources. This one has very poor sourcing. This organization does good work, but Wikipedia is not the place to advertise and promote religious ventures that do not meet the notability rules. Belongs on a its own site.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added some independent sources but in a largely illiterate, small country like Malawi one cannot expect many reports, though the references given seem to show the notability of this work for the development of this country.Jzsj (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jbh ^Talk 14:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's only 3 years old, not enough time to accumulate enough for its own solid article and there are no other convincing and suggestive signs this can be kept simply because of its affiliations. Notifying DGG for subject analysis. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to drat space awaiting sources. They are simply not sufficient at present. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Lilongwe, because the latter article presently has no mention of the topic, and the Archdiocese is affiliated with the Jesuit Centre for Ecology and Development. This will improve the merge target article, as per WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. zero gnews hits. one gbooks hit. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Delete entirely is better as preserving it serves nothing convincingly better if there's nothing actually convincing of any anytime soon notability. It suffices with it being mentioned there with the amount needed. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Miller (actor, born 1975)[edit]

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

My searches have found nothing actually suggesting a better notable article and the listed links are only mentions, there's simply nothing else to suggest improvements for the current questionability. Notifying taggers Boleyn and Wgolf. SwisterTwister talk 00:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jbh ^Talk 14:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor and comedian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. I cannot find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to support a claim that the actor meets WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:46, 16 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, I would've basically offered a vote here, but the overall consensus shows No Consensus for any particular conclusion whether Delete or Keep thus closing until and whenever someone wants to reconsider (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 18:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly effect in popular culture[edit]

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

Article exists as an example farm in prose for about eight years. Very poorly referenced - none of the references are actually valid with regard to the significance or cultural impact of the work they're citing - they merely affirm the work exists. Filled with original research. Removing all uncited and poorly-cited material will result in an empty article. The only decent information in the article is the external link to the Boston Globe, which can be easily incorporated into butterfly effect. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This example farm belongs on TV Tropes or Wikia. It's difficult to research this topic because any searches return huge amounts of hits for The Butterfly Effect (2004). Restricting the searches, it's possible to find citations for individual media properties (e.g., [66], [67]). However, I don't really see coverage of the concept itself such that it would satisfy WP:LISTN. It's possible I gave up a bit too early, though. The one good source can be moved to the appropriate article, as above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets all the appropriate criteria for a spin-out article per WP:IPC, and the alternative to deletion would be to merge the content back into the main article (!). Nothing against cleanup, sourcing, and citation (which every Wikipedia article needs), but the nominator doesn't appear to understand WP:IPC and why this article is better than the alternative, and AFD is not cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IPC is an essay. WP:LISTN is a guideline. It doesn't really matter what essays this article satisfies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, this is not an article cleanup request; cleanup will result in an empty article, redirecting back to butterfly effect, effectively deleting the article. Deletion is proposed because the article has maintained poor citation and original research from its inception, going on eight years now. Sometimes no article is better than a bad article. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you appear to be under the impression that simply arguing with everyone who disagrees with you is helpful in an AfD. Your arguments are not compelling arguments for deletion, in that you don't cite insurmountable problems that cannot be fixed through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article without sources showing notability is pretty much the most important test for deleting an article. Everything else is hand-waving. I'm sorry that me being involved in this discussion is "not helpful", but as the proposer I feel like I need to discuss why this proposal is correct. For example, when you claim that this proposal is meant to fix the article when in fact this proposal is because there are no sources showing notability, bar one, which isn't a compelling reason for an entire article filled with original research. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEL8: "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following: 8. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline."

WP:GNG: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content."

In case this wasn't clear from the proposal and my comment above. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of argument I have cleaned up the article of all original research. This has no effect on notability; with the exception of one source, none of the sources discuss butterfly effect in popular culture. They may mention it to the effect of "the butterfly effect is part of popular culture" but that's it. That's a trivial mention. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your version can be seen here. I've reverted your blanking of much of the article, which isn't good form for an article you want deleted while the AFD is still pending. postdlf (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not blanking, it's removing original research. Good form or not, AfD does not preclude editing the article, and no-original-research is a cornerstone policy of Wikipedia. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the extent to which this article is OR in whole or in part is much of what is being discussed here. OR is not what you say it is; it's what a consensus of editors says it is. You have one view; other editors have a different view. The AFD is still open so the consensus has not been determined. postdlf (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly it looks like other contributors are free to remove uncited material from the article but I'm not. One way or the other the amount of OR in the article is independent of its notability, and removing OR from the article should not influence this deletion discussion in any way. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's too long to be merged into Butterfly effect and is a topic notable enough for Wikipedia. Instead tag it with "improve references". --Fixuture (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's notable, why is there only one good citation after eight years? Notability should be established, not assumed. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteers had other things to do. I've got the number of refs up to 23 already, and there are plenty more for anyone who needs some healthy exercise. Sources include the British Film Institute and the mathematician Ian Stewart, by the way. Notability depends on the existence of sources, not what may happen to be in the article already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British Film Institute citation. Zero discussion of the significance of the butterfly effect in popular culture, worthless citation that merely says "this movie exists". Ian Stewart citation. Slightly better! Discusses the butterfly effect! Doesn't discuss its significance in popular culture. Sadly, the overwhelming majority of the references you added are like the first one - merely state a work of fiction exists. A few of them - two by my count - actually discuss the butterfly effect but don't actually refer to its significance in popular culture. One citation, which I highlighted in my proposal, is actually good. I didn't want to edit-war over the citations you added, but I have tried to show you that they are against Wikipedia policy. The references have to show that the work (and in this article, specifically the "butterfly effect" plot device) has significance over culture, other works, and so on. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely original research. None of the citations are valid. Nothing here is encyclopedic so nothing here needs to be merged anywhere. —Prhart com♥ 04:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - to my own surprise, as I'm no lover of pop listcruft. However, the fact that TV episodes and pop groups, not to mention the film Le Battement d'ailes du papillon, have actually been named Butterfly Effect is undoubtedly relevant, and could certainly be reliably cited. I've taken the trouble to read the Boston Globe article, and have used it to update Butterfly effect; I agree it's the most reliable source in the current article, but that means that the rest of the text needs better sourcing, not wholesale deletion. The topic is clearly notable, as popular culture was for a time fascinated by the butterfly effect, and this was sufficiently documented in a wide range of sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'd do good by finding these sources instead of merely assuming they exist. That would make the article notable and make it far easier to remove the listcruft without appearing to delete the entire article. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should have said, I have already added some; and I've cleaned up a substantial portion of the cruft, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit off-topic to the deletion process: please don't add references that merely show that a work exists (for example this edit among many others). That's not helping; it adds more trivial mentions that are not significant. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's directly relevant. When the pop culture point in question is "Musician ABC composed a song named 'Butterfly Effect'" then a proof that ABC did indeed publish just such a song is exactly what is required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:POPCULT: "Unfortunately, these sections are frequently just lists of appearances and mentions, many of them unencyclopedically trivial." An article is not a list of trivial references. Sticking a bunch of references that say "this work exists" is not encyclopedic. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets the appropriate guidelines for a split article. And as sourcing is concerned, films and other types of media can be used as sources about themselves. That is clearly the case here. JOJ ^Hutton 14:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:POPCULT: "Unfortunately, these sections are frequently just lists of appearances and mentions, many of them unencyclopedically trivial." An article is not a list of trivial references. Sticking a bunch of references that say "this work exists" is not encyclopedic. The article is exactly non-encyclopedic because it's a collection of references that say "hey, here's a work that's called/references Butterfly Effect". BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't any more. It combines mention of a few such works and pop groups with analysis, now starting to be properly cited, of the manner in which such works make use of the concept. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"combines with analysis" is original research. This is why the references have to show significance, and not merely that the work/person/object exists. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the nominator is proposing to change the guideline to support his interpretation at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Expand the wording in MOS:POPCULT. postdlf (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion proposal is about the notability of one article. The policy is about the content of thousands. MOS:POPCULT is not about notability, it's about the content of articles. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasonable subject for an article, covered well. Artw (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or very selective merge. The article should be a discussion on the topic of the subject in popular culture. It's currently just a laundry list of every trivial mention people can find. Properly sourced and devoid of original research, you could probably get a nice three paragraph section in the main article highlighting the most prolific examples. I think purging and starting from scratch would be the best option. TTN (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Only two people argued to keep.

One, is a WP:SPA who created this article, which doesn't disqualify him from commenting, but not really a dispassionate viewpoint. In any case, the user asserted the existence of sources, but didn't actually supply any.

The other keeper did provide two sources (thank you), but looking at them, both are more about the company than the person. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dev Randhawa[edit]

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

My searches have found links at News and Highbeam, but nothing at all actually suggesting solid independent notability including from the company. I should note I PROD this but it was removed with no explanations at all. SwisterTwister talk 00:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Firstly I'd like to apologise for not explaining the removal of the PROD - this was an oversight on my part and for this I apologise. In regards to the proposal for deletion, I'd like to know what you would consider to be solid independent notability in regards to links and sources. I will be happy to provide more appropriate links if possible, if this is something you'd be happy to receive. In regards to an argument for keeping the profile, I'd like to cite [| WP:ANYBIO] and point out that the subject has received several awards and nominations for his role in his respective field. HomersDoh (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jbh ^Talk 14:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 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 01:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as appears to be a notable company from a quick search (but does not have its own article) and CEO in question earned significant award from notable journal The Northern Miner, as well as an interview from an independent source. Needs improvement, but a search reveals a decent number of sources discussing him in a non-trivial manner. Appable (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, this is a case where the company is more notable than the CEO and since we are voting about the person (not the company), I vote delete. There are multiple sources focusing on the company [68],[69]. When I tried to look for sources for the individual, I couldn't find any which discusses him in detail. I did find a few interviews and many quotes, but every single one of them was in the context of the company. I am convinced that the subject is not independently notable for his own article. The awards which the subject has won seem to be awarded by Canadian trade journals in this area. I am not convinced that the awards are very significant in this case - for one I expect to see some secondary citations about the awards. In addition, the EY awards for which the subject was nominated seems to be in context of the company as well - there is a co-nomination along with him for the same company. Overall, I feel while the company is notable, the article subject is not and this article should be deleted. I wouldn't object is someone creates an article about the company. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against the creation of a new article about the company. Our inclusion rules for businesspeople do not grant an automatic inclusion freebie to every CEO of a notable company — the CEO himself has to be the subject of reliable source coverage in his own right, not merely mentioned in coverage of the company, to get over our inclusion rules for businesspeople. Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The current Keep votes are still basically acknowledging the current questionability and thus is at least best deleted for now until and whenever a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 18:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is now per Bearcat. Maybe relisting, improving while creating a Fission Corp-article too will make me strike out my vote. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Illumibowl. joe decker ^talk 22:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Aaron Alexander[edit]

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

While Illumibowl may be marginally notable, having gotten notice at Engadget and CNET, the designer/promoters don't appear to have any independent notability, or at least aren't "world renowned business experts." Acroterion (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both creators don't appear to have independent notability from their invention. As such, both their pages should be deleted, or at least redirected to Illumibowl. JudgeRM 15:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Illumibowl, which will enhance that article. This is also functional as a valid search term for a redirect. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely as there's nothing at all actually convincing as to why keep this and also keep as vulnerable to premature restarting or anything else to suggest against consensus. There's nothing at all to suggest he will anytime soon have his own independent notability and is clearly only best known for that Illumibowl, thus nothing convincing to keep the minimal pieces of content here. SwisterTwister talk 18:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Illumibowl. I'm not sure if there's anything worth merging, but the history would be in tact if someone wants to merge something. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Illumibowl. Without prejudice to including selected content at the target. joe decker ^talk 22:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kannely[edit]

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

While Illumibowl may be marginally notable, having gotten notice at Engadget and CNET, the designer/promoters don't appear to have any independent notability, or at least aren't "world renowned business experts." Acroterion (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both creators don't appear to have independent notability from their invention. As such, both their pages should be deleted, or at least redirected to Illumibowl. JudgeRM 15:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Illumibowl, which will enhance that article. This also serves as a valid search term for a redirect. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as I found nothing better at all and there's vulnerability of keeping this while having absolutely no signs of any actual independent notability, co-founding that company is not any means of keeping this anyhow whatsoever. SwisterTwister talk 18:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Illumibowl. I'm not sure if there's anything worth merging, but the history would be in tact if someone wants to merge something. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vi-Jon Laboratories. Redirect, without prejudice to discussions of merging selected content into the target article. I'd suggest taking up that issue on the Talk page of the Vi-Jon page if there are disagreements. joe decker ^talk 21:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Germ-X[edit]

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

No indication this brand is notable. Only source is a press release from the company. Prod removed without explanation. SummerPhD^v2.0 01:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Vi-Jon Laboratories, which presently has only one sentence about the product and will thus improve that article. Interestingly, per this St. Louis Public Radio article, Germ-X is a "very popular" product, but overall source coverage may not be adequate to support a standalone article. This scholarly source from the Journal of analytical toxicology provides significant coverage. Some book sources found include [70], [71], [72], but the depth of coverage is not significant. This source from KCBD News provides around a few paragraphs about the topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is nothing notable about this brand - not a darn thing. It is just another antimicrobial product. Delete and salt. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do use this, and it works pretty well (and isn't that expensive). That doesn't make it nearly notable enough for an article. As Jytdog said there really isn't anything that gives this notability. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect as this is actually a nationally known brand and is certainly known but there's at best nothing to suggest its own currently notable and improvable article thus delete and redirect to the company. SwisterTwister talk 18:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Vi-Jon Laboratories, where readers can find relevant information on the subject. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep (nomination withdrawn; non-admin closure) St Anselm (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred C. Marble, Jr.[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No indication of notability? Fails WP:GNG? What a load of rubbish. A diocesan bishop of a major church. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:CLERGY. St Anselm (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Drop the middle initial and 'Jr.' off the google news search, and you get multiple, independent RS, GNG is met--although the article is sufficiently short it could certainly be expanded to incorporate them. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Magnolia677 I have worked with you, a good and careful editor, but I can see that you are unaware that Bishops 00WP:CLERGY]] of major denominations are regardes as intrinsically notable, much as are state and provincial legislators. That is, all you have to do is be chosen Bishop and you get a page. You probably want to withdraw this one. Or any editor can close it as Keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and withdraw my nomination for deletion. Every bishop, like every hockey player, is indeed notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:39, 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.

[1] "Lawncare Made Easy, Lawnstarter Raises $6 Million Series A". The Huffington Post. 15 June 2015.

[2] "LawnStarter Raises $6M To Become Your "Lawn Care Concierge"". TechCrunch. AOL. 2 June 2015.

[3] Calnan, Christopher (3 June 2015). "Austin online marketplace operator LawnStarter raises funding - Austin Business Journal". Austin Business Journal.

[4] "LawnStarter Raises $6 Million in a Series A Round". SiliconHills.

[5] "LawnStarter Expands to San Antonio and Four Other Markets". SiliconHills.

[6] "LawnStarter Launches in Austin to Simplify Lawn Care for Consumers". SiliconHills.

[7] Calnan, Christopher (1 August 2014). "LawnStarter uses the Web to connect property owners with contractors". Austin Business Journal.

[8] "Austin City Council to vote on 'Fair Chance Hiring' on Thursday". KTBC.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]