Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 March	29 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Malcolm[edit]

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

Subject doesn't meet notability criteria outlined at WP:BIO. Most of the references are not independent of the subject. Those that are independent are either local news stories and/or they barely mention the subject. Nothing qualifies as "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". All the contributors to article content are SPAs, including one whose name suggests this is self-promotion. Edgeweyes (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current article is not better convincing of any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as evidenced by information of above. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY. Amccann421 (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winning an International Jugglers' Assocation Numbers Competition is judged only on technical ability and not for showmanship, so his awards in the Individual Rings Numbers Competition Malcolm’s technical juggling ability (see Sport (competitive) juggling^[1]), which is noteworthy enough to have won medals two years in the numbers competition. As IJA is “dedicated to advance the art of juggling worldwide”^[2]; Malcolm’s raising the bar in the Individual Rings Numbers Juggling Competition is raising the bar for jugglers worldwide to beat. This makes him a noteworthy technical juggler. JillCDeBiase (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete': Doesn't meet GNG. Merely being a competent professional in your field is not the standard for having a Wikipedia article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juggling
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juggling

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Rippeon-Nemetz[edit]

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

Minimally sourced biography of a person notable only for having been murdered. Per longstanding Wikipedia consensus, every murder that happens is not automatically a suitable article topic just because it happened; some kind of enduring notability has to be demonstrated before it qualifies. But with just one source here, no reason has been shown why this murder would warrant being treated as a special case. Delete, unless somebody can show a lot more substance and sourcing and significance than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunate, as always, but no evidence this is a notable person to have a biographical article, nor a notable crime/event to justify an article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to distinguish this person from hundreds of others shot to death annually, or killed in other ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A tragedy with no indication of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG and there is nothing extraordinary about this person's death to have a Wikipedia article about it. Mwenzangu (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A lack of sources does not help. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zamindar Rohim Boksh Haji[edit]

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

No citation, no references found after Google search. Might not even exist and even if he does exist there has been no evidence of Notability. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be some form of non-notable businessman who belonged to a clan who ran a plantation. Clarification and ref tags have remained unsourced.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly questionable, no better sources or better information, thus simply nothing convincing to actually keep. SwisterTwister talk 01:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Stenqvist[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, he does fail NHOCKEY, I have no idea why I created this page (it was 2013) ÞórrÓðinnTýr ^Eh? 14:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Mdtemp (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fringe minor-leaguer, fails GNG and NHOCKEY, unlikely to meet them going forward. Ravenswing 12:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Smuggling from Mexico to the U.S.[edit]

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

Unsourced essay, duplicating material found in several other articles. ubiquity (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. What you said, plus Improper title and formatting. To me, it looks like it was written by a child. --^TheSpaceFace _{Let's Chat} 21:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:TNT - this is a personal essay Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ESSAY. Almost positive this is a school assignment, given there's a "Conclusion" section and the references are in MLA formatting - the hallmark of any school essay. Also as stated, a superior article already exists for this, so this could potentially be WP:A10. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It duplicates a better written article and it looks like WP:ESSAY. Mwenzangu (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Stephens Celin[edit]

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

Film student who "has not received any award or nomination yet" - fails WP:BASIC with no secondary sources. McGeddon (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:FILMMAKER, as only released film is not notable by WP:NF crh23 (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any coverage of the subject to meet the general notability guidelines nor do they meet WP:FILMMAKER considering they only recently released a film and it is a short. The page is also eligible for speedy deletion via WP:A7. Opencooper (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly non-notable film student. GAB^Hello! 15:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a student-filmmaker. He may one day be notable, but is not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinnacle Air[edit]

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

According to its own web page, this company only sells airplane tickets [1], does not have its own "fleat" (as stated in the article) and has only 30 employees. No independent sources are provided, and Google news search does not return a single relevant hit [2]. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially per nom. I duplicated the search, and everything substantial I can find is related to the American airline company. I've found a few things: here, but none of those 38 results is remotely substantive enough for this to be kept, in my view. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did the same searches and found the same lack of coverage. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see anything that would make it not fail WP:COMPANY. Only news coverage I could find mentions it in passing, talking about various airfields. crh23 (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. There are no secondary sources to back up most if not all of the info therein. Maharayamui (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and plausible redirect to Endeavor Air, which was formerly known as Pinnacle Airlines. Nate • (chatter) 16:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifai[edit]

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

Reference are almost entirely from its own website and press releases & minor notices about funding. The reasonable conclusion is that there is nothing better,and that the firm is not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any substantive coverage in reliable secondary sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This company is most likely a new start-up, and, should it be successful, would definitely merit a Wikipedia article. Deletion of this article should be held off, if it even happens. Also, sources from places such as Wired should be considered reliable. User:Sheepythemouse

That's WP:TOOSOON. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'm new, sorry User:Sheepythemouse —Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better at all for the applicable notability, nothing else better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is WP:TOOSOON material and there are no reliable third party WP:RS to satisfy notability at this time. Mwenzangu (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, I'm the one who created this page. I tried to keep it as factual as possible and I updated the sources. There are many companies that were established in 2013 that are on Wikipedia and not considered "too soon" and are less notable than Clarifai -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KulturNav, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buildzoom, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vroom.com, etc. We also modelled our sources after an established page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hootsuite ... I have sources from Techcrunch, Recode, Bloomberg, Wired, Inc., New York Post, and other independent publications. I also have sources from notable academic research organizations like ImageNet. Please let me know which sentences need better supporting sources and I will replace them - there have been dozens of articles written on or mentioning Clarifai. Let me know how I can improve this entry, thanks! Pudgethefish (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you have mentioned is WP:OSE. By looking at this article on its own merit it doesn't meet the required coverage in WP:RS to be notable enough to have it's own page. The references you have mentioned are just the usual announcements about a company getting funding etc. Please check out WP:CORP to understand how notability for corporations works here. Mwenzangu (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Soltan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and pretty sure that simply competing in a country's national powerlifting competition (and even finishing in 2nd one year) is enough to pass WP:NSPORT. I am also nominating the following related pages because they fall into the same category (did not win national championship and no evidence of success in major international competitions):

JTtheOG (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only independent coverage is on wide reaching, database style websites, which can't establish notability. Judging by most of WP:NSPORT, notability is gained by either having major success in an international competition or winning an national competition, of which the subject has done neither. crh23 (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable and poorly sourcedMasterofroks (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all non-notable sportspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CPR Cell Phone Repair[edit]

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

Article, nudging toward but not outright crossing over the line into advertorial rather than encyclopedic presentation, about a company with no strong claim to passing WP:CORP. The sources here are one of its own self-published press releases and three listicles in a magazine, with no indication shown that it's the subject of any significant reliable source coverage about it (which is not the same thing as "named in listicles".) Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 19:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 19:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. No evidence that this passes WP:CORP, at least that I can find. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. They appear to be the biggest company in this business, but I couldn't find any coverage except a business listing at entrepreneur.com. Other hits are all to directory type listings of the hundreds of store locations. They may become notable in the future, but I don't think so yet.MB (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all for even minimally better notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass WP:CORP from sources given and from anything else I could find from searches. Maharayamui (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian L. Jones[edit]

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

WP:BLP of the mayor of a town with a population of just 1.3K, which is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on a mayor under WP:NPOL (a place would have to be almost 50 times larger than this before he would even have a possibility of claiming notability on that basis) -- and the sourcing here relies on purely local media coverage that doesn't nationalize enough to grant him a WP:GNG pass in lieu of failing NPOL. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable mayor of a very small place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We would be littered with articles if one was made every time an Open Meetings violation took place. Anyway, future political aspirations may be in the works, it is WP:TOOSOON for this non–WP:NPOL.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN very small-town mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A7 and G11 DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spectro Analytical Labs Limited[edit]

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

Non-notable company. All provided references are directory listings and/or press releases. Nothing found to support notability. --Finngall ^talk 18:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The page seems like a brochure for the company, and not an encyclopedia article --^TheSpaceFace _{Let's Chat} 23:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of cycling clubs in Scotland[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. Nominated as Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY for every conceivable cycling clubs out there. Also none of these have it's own articles, which makes it useless as an article. Donnie Park (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A list of external links, where the items in the list mostly fail WP:N (which isn't in itself bad, but implies that the list also fails WP:N). crh23 (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - It's just filled with external links .... Sure we can delink them but then we'd have a bunch of clubs with no articles.... plus it's all unsourced anyway, IMHO it's better off deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 21:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Actually two of the entries, City of Edinburgh Racing Club and Lomond Roads Cycling Club, are internal links to articles, but I'm not convinced even they are notable. --Deskford (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. At best this is WP:TOOSOON, as these are a collection of YouTube films (some unreleased) by a new, amateur filmmaker. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetic Films[edit]

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

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

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

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

Completely unsourced articles about a "film studio" and three of its films -- except the film studio is primarily a YouTube channel, the short films are really just uploads to it, and the "feature film" is in production and has no sourceable distribution information (such as film festival screenings) yet. All three articles were created by a user named "Rcamua", an evident conflict of interest since the studio was founded and the films were directed by "Raphael Camua" -- and the other pitfall to watch out for here is that the claimed list of music videos does not assist notability at all, as he wasn't the director of any of the songs' official artist-endorsed music videos, but instead simply made his own unofficial alternate videos for the songs which received distribution nowhere but his own YouTube channel itself. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which every amateur filmmaker gets to have an article about his company or his films just because his own YouTube channel verifies that he exists -- he and the films must be the subject of reliable source coverage in media, verifying a claim of notability that passes WP:CREATIVE, WP:CORP or WP:NFILMS, to earn an article on here. Delete all. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 19:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm actually going to speedy delete this as WP:A7. There's nothing on the Internet about this guy that would show that he passes notability guidelines other than his own publications and there's not really anything on the page that would assert that he's notable in the slightest. The page is also incredibly deceptive, as it's written to give off the impression that Camua directed the official music videos for the various performers, which clearly isn't the case. Making a fan video isn't the same thing as making an official music video - not even close. I'm also going to post a warning on the guy's page against creating articles on things that he's done, since it seems fairly clear that this is the director himself posting his work to Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the company page, although I can't speedy the others. As soon as we get a delete or two for the films, I'll snow close this. I don't see this closing any other way, TBH. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could delete Unknown Caller since that was a YT only release and as such, it'd also fall under A7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I actually closed this but was not aware there were other articles listed for the nomination, Delete all as they are all questionable. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to revert this - I think I may just close this as WP:SNOW. I really, really don't see this closing any other way even if I were to wait for others to weigh in. Ultimately what we have here is a young filmmaker that has recently begun creating things and posting them to YT. The films are actually fairly well done and look very good, but these films and the company fail notability guidelines fairly solidly, as these are all done by someone who has only been active for three years and has under 100 followers on YT. Hopefully he will make it in the future, but for now he's just not notable by Wikipedia guidelines and falls under A7 criteria. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well, if it will help, here's another delete vote. I don't see anything usable. Google search results are basically just YouTube hits and some Wikipedia mirrors. Sometimes YouTube films do become notable, such as The Punisher: Dirty Laundry, but it's rare, even when they're quite good. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Carroll[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN minor-leaguer, has won no distinctions, no evidence of passing the GNG, fails NHOCKEY going away. I'm at a loss to figure out why the creator felt this player was notable. Ravenswing 20:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NHOCKEY: has not achieved honours in a lower minor league to satisfy criterion #4 nor played sufficient games in a top-level minor league to satisfy #3. Also fails WP:GNG crh23 (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Way too soon for an article. Deadman137 (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG at least. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Nominator started second discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian Music Competition (2nd nomination). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Music Competition[edit]

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

Given that this junior competition does not yet have any winners who are notable enough for a WP article, I do not see how it is likely to be notable itself. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Near[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable in all respects. Quis separabit? 17:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not even close to WP:NACTOR. One notable film role, nothing else going for it crh23 (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails NACTOR as well as GNG, The BLP was featured on the Homepage but it's just a mention and as far as I'm aware articles don't get kept because they've been on homepage?, Anyway delete. –Davey2010^Talk 21:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not better satisfying WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Never close so early but me thinks BEFORE wasnt followed as theres a few sources on him (which I cannot be arsed to link), Plus as noted below he meets NACTOR anyway, Consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boro Stjepanović[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actor/director. Quis separabit? 16:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for chrissake. Four interwikis, 50 films, five of them bluelinked in the article, and just google:Boro Stjepanović gives a lot of reliable references from all ex-Yu countries. No such user (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACTOR #1. Seems to have had substantial work in many many notable productions, not to mention a fair bit of news coverage, which I cannot evaluate because I do not speak the relevant language, which seems to be enough for GNG, too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he has 131 credits including television and has had prominent leading roles,so NACTOR is passed, looking for RS. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Loads of parts in notable films, passes WP:NACTOR easily with 131(!) credits (fails WP:DIRECTOR, but that's not really relevant) crh23 (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Hickmott[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Probably WP:TOOSOON. Yosemiter (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too soon for this, fails criteria needed for article. Deadman137 (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the coverage needed for WP:GNG and the accomplishments for WP:NHOCKEY. Mdtemp (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Conacher[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Probably also WP:TOOSOON. Yosemiter (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too soon for this, fails criteria needed for article. Deadman137 (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some routine sports coverage is not enough to meet WP:GNG and fails WP:NHOCKEY. Mdtemp (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY clearly, but the WP:GNG evaluation is more tricky. Ultimately I think deletion is the best option for now, because the coverage in reliable sources is general and not about him for the most part. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: This is a near miss, because the Buffalo News "band of brothers" article plainly satisfies the GNG, and just one other such reference would be a GNG pass. The other cites don't clear ROUTINE, but I could flip to a keep vote in a hurry were one to appear. Ravenswing 12:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Stanton (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Probably also WP:TOOSOON Yosemiter (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too soon for this, fails criteria needed for article. Deadman137 (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Mdtemp (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Éric Faille[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY Yosemiter (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too soon for this, fails criteria needed for article. Deadman137 (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Mdtemp (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Findlay (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY Yosemiter (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NHOCKEY/LA, the AHL is a league that can grant a player notability under NHOCKEY criterion #3, where the condition is "played at least 200 games, or achieved preeminent honors" — but neither of those things has been claimed here, and the AHL is not a league which can confer automatic notability on every player at all. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he passes #3 or gets drafted into a fully professional league. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played enough games or at a high enough level needed for an article about him. Deadman137 (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet notability standards. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Overwhelming consensus to delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arean Time Zone System[edit]

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

This page seems to be someone discussing their own proposed idea for timekeeping on Mars. One of the sources listed was created by the person promulgating this theory after they were challenged for RS; no other independent sources have been offered. Please see the article talk page for more information. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence of significance. DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet better convincing, delete for now until better information and sources is available. SwisterTwister talk 17:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at least until some Martian sources can be found saying that this system is in use. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A11 as obviously made up by the creator. "Ares Astronautics" domain was registered in early March, and web site contains a few pretty pictures, fake contact information, no real content, and not even the slightest evidence of notability. --Finngall ^talk 19:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A11 until there is evidence of someone else taking interest in this proposal. Blythwood (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either Delete or speedy delete, because Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Disclosure: I was quite heavily involved in the discussion in the talk page. Extra info about Ares Astronautics: the team listed in their web page is the same as in the demo of the Wordpress theme used to build their site. — Edgar.bonet (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (WP:A11) - I think A11 does apply because the article did not make any credible claim of significance. Such a claim would be for example "breakthrough solution to the Mars timezone problem". I could see an argument that this claim was implicitely made when the article was created, but since it does not say explicitely so, that is not far from saying the mere creation of an article is a claim of accordance to WP rules including notability (and that is certainly not the spirit of the CSS criteria). Tigraan (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per violation of WP:OR. I couldn't find any outside evidence of this topic to warrant notability, and Google Ngram searches for "Arean time zone system" and "Arean time zone" turn up a "No valid ngrams to plot" notice, indicating no widespread usage. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 01:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2008–09 Eastbourne Borough F.C. season[edit]

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

Article about a season by a club not playing in a fully-professional league, which fails WP:NSEASONS. We have had numerous AfDs on these and the majority have resulted in deletion, e.g. this or this. Prod removed by a fan of the club in question. Also nominating 2009–10 Eastbourne Borough F.C. season for deletion for the same reason. Number 5 7 15:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See above: fails WP:NSEASONS; WP:CON is to delete. Amccann421 (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without wanting to violate WP:OtherStuffExists, the season article 2008–09 York City F.C. season from a club in the same league the same season is now a Good Article. Is it not possible that the Eastborune article could also be one with further work? Del_♉sion23 (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can understand the rationale behind this move, based on precedent, however not the approach taken - given that no other articles (at time of checking) have been flagged up for deletion - which leads me to question the lack of consistent application? Echoing User:Delusion23's comment, I would note that this article is considerably better cited than numerous season articles of clubs competing at the same level. The guidelines of WP:NSEASONS also seem unclear on what classifies as not notable, only really addressing what is certainly notable - leaving this a bit of a grey area. BoroFan89 (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As noted above, fails NSEASONS. I would actually argue that the York season noted above, whilst structurally a good article, is actually not notable and consists almost entirely of routine match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG, as all coverage is run-of-the-mill for any club. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both - not notable enough. Fails GNG. C 679 17:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Gohari[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 an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:54, 28 March 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. Soccerway potentially indicates he has played in the national cup which could confer NFOOTY status, but I can find nothing on Soccerway or RSSSF to indicate he was a playing member of the squad. Fenix down (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the zeros in the infobox confirm that notability is not close to being met. C 679 17:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hasn't played a single match anywhere, and no significant coverage. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A BLPPROD may have been preferred. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sobia Khan[edit]

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

Notability is contested. Actors usually pass notability guidelines, but I'll leave this particular article to debate. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability here at all, borderline WP:A7 candidate. -IagoQnsi (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced BLP. sami ^talk 10:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Reji Koshy[edit]

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

The article fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Hannah Reji Koshy only played a supporting role in her debut and its not even notable. As to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER, the person should have significant roles in multiple notable films. JackTracker (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself PRODed it and planned to nominate for AfD since none of this is better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 17:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : the article is all about an Indian Beauty pageant contestant and an actress on Malayalam film industry. The actress were too seen in an interview about her film on the popular talk show Onnum Onnum Moonu on Mazhavil Manorama.--Helper V1 (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helper V1 : There's not any special weightage/more priority for beauty pageant contestant's (As on the world their are lot of beauty pageant contests carrying every year, if we considered all contestants to be encyclopedic it will not be practical). As on the case of Hannah Reji Koshy as Entertainer, the first clause of WP:ENTERTAINER is failing. JackTracker (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I think there is some notability here. Masterofroks (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established. AusLondonder (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article's references support WP:GNG. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Southern Junior-Senior High School[edit]

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

No apparent notability or references available to be cited. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 12:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand that the page (and Union City HS) may be deleted, if you look back through my history, I am systematically going through every high school in Indiana and either updating it or doing routine page maintenance. I personally believe it's up to the students / faculty / citizens of that area to fill in the information for that school, as they're more familiar with it. There should be a suitable timeframe given before nominating something for deletion especially as the article was made in good-faith - to include an Infobox.ZCash1104 (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ZCash1104: Hi. Articles for deletion discussions are usually not concluded for a week or longer, so you have plenty of time to add more information to the article if you think it can be brought up to Wikipedia's standards. Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Providing there is some independent evidence that the school exists, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES suggests that this should be considered to be notable. JMWt (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JMWt: Hey good to know. I just checked out the School Outcomes page you put on there. Just noting that I do put the school's website on each page created, so hopefully that is at least one independent article to verify its existence. Thanks for the information! :) ZCash1104 (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ZCash1104: you may need to think a bit clearer about what an "independent secondary source" means, because (fairly obviously, when you think about it), a website written by the school is not independent or secondary as per WP:RS. If the only source that exists suggesting that the school exists is written by the school itself, that's not good enough. JMWt (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an independent secondary source. There is likely others (including, for example, official government documents). JMWt (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It is listed in the Indiana Department of Education website.[3] (Click Randolph County in the map [middle of the eastern boundary], and then on Randolph Southern School Corp.) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail WP:GNG. There is coverage, but it appears to be local and routine. Note that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay summarising common outcomes of AfD discussions, not a policy or guideline. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Secondary schools have long been kept on bare existence rather than GNG. This is due to Wikipedia's gazetteer function. Schools are considered features of the landscape, much like roads and settlements. Indeed, the US Government recognizes this school as such: U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Randolph Southern Junior-Senior High School. It is listed in the NCES database. And finally, it is listed here on the Indiana High School Athletic Association website. Although, contrary to the opinion expressed above, all that is needed is the school's website to prove existence. It exists. We will have an article on it. John from Idegon (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- While it is true that secondary schools have generally been kept, John from Idegon, that consensus might be breaking down. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Shepherd English School, which was recently closed as delete. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors might be interested to discuss whether WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be considered to be consensus at this RfC given that this has been brought up here. JMWt (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongly, since it was clearly a no consensus result. I have asked the closer to change his mind. If not I shall take it to DRV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which applies until it doesn't (i.e., until consensus has changed). VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding consensus at AfD that high schools of confirmed existence are notable per se like hamlets, rivers, highways, mountains, and professional athletes. Carrite (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the past bazillion AfDs on this subject. As I just did to Union City Community High School, I encourage someone to improve the article as well.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Union City Community High School[edit]

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

No apparent notability or references available to be cited. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 12:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand that the page (and Randolph Southern HS) may be deleted, if you look back through my history, I am systematically going through every high school in Indiana and either updating it or doing routine page maintenance. I personally believe it's up to the students / faculty / citizens of that area to fill in the information for that school, as they're more familiar with it. There should be a suitable timeframe given before nominating something for deletion especially as the article was made in good-faith - to include an Infobox.ZCash1104 (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Providing there is some independent evidence that the school exists, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES suggests that this should be considered to be notable. JMWt (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We don't delete high schools here and this one is easy enough to verify.[4] • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:V, so keep per longstanding consensus. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It is listed in the Indiana Department of Education website.[5] (Click Randolph County in the map [middle of the eastern boundary], and then on Union School Corporation.) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES isn't a policy or guideline (note the failure of such arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Shepherd English School), and it is not clear that this school meets WP:GNG, with most of the coverage local and routine. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No arguments "failed" in that discussion. It was incorrectly closed and will be going to DRV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Gene93. John from Idegon (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors might be interested to discuss whether WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be considered to be consensus at this RfC given that this has been brought up here. JMWt (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a high school. No reason to think that with local and hard copy searches sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. Just Chilling (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added some content on history, the school's origins date back to 1872.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Dubrovskiy[edit]

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

Not notable person. I could not find a single reliable source about this person. Sigwald (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice, due to a lack of significant coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability whatsoever. Frankly, I'd advocate WP:A7 deletion here. -IagoQnsi (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Copping[edit]

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

Poorly sourced (relying entirely on IMDb and a blog) WP:BLP of an actress whose only discernible claims of notability are having won a regional film award and voicing a minor character in an animated television series. Neither of these are enough to pass WP:NACTOR, and the sourcing is not sufficient to get her over WP:GNG instead. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I reviewed this at NPP and this seems questionable for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No where near passing any notability criteria for a person involved in acting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R.R. Turock[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of an entirely self-published e-book writer and a separate article about one of her self-published book series, with no substantive or properly sourced indication of notability per WP:AUTHOR or WP:NBOOK. As written, these just assert that the writer and the books exist, and are sourced exclusively to her own self-published website and a profile on Smashwords. Writers are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because their own primary source profiles verify that they exist, nor are books automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- either a writer or a book has to be the subject of reliable source coverage, verifying an actual claim of notability, to qualify for an article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles. I see no evidence that either the self-published author nor the self-published book series are notable. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Publications-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. I couldn't find evidence to show that either are notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as they don't meet WP:GNG, no reviews, awards or anything else found that may lead to notability (which is a pity as the fox series pictures look cute:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was was delete, with recreation as a redirect perfectly acceptable. Let me know if reconversion into an article is performed, and I'll protect it. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shoulda Been There, Pt. 1[edit]

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

Non-notable recording. Imo this should be a redirect to the barely noable artiste, but the editor who created it keeps reverting the edit TheLongTone (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 03:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennicet Gutiérrez[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an activist, with no strong claim of notability under our inclusion standards for activists: the reliable source coverage here is piled entirely onto a single incident which makes her a WP:BLP1E, while all of the other sourcing is of the primary variety and cannot boost notability. As always, Wikipedia is not a public relations platform to honor people just because we like or respect the work they do -- it's an encyclopedia, on which certain specific markers of notability, and a certain minimum level of RS coverage in media, have to be attained before a person becomes suitable for inclusion. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if she can be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 23:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources outside of the one event. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While she came to fame through her heckling of Obama, she has continued as a notable person since that time. E.g. https://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2015/11/carrying-the-torch-for-her-sisters-jennicet-gutierrez-speaks-on-her-experiences-as-a-translatina Keynote speaker at a major conference. http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_29554696/cu-boulder-set-host-10th-annual-transforming-gender http://dailynexus.com/2015-11-08/jennicet-gutierrez-advocates-for-marginalized-groups-at-the-hub/ The coverage just goes on and on. Ross-c (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University student newspapers (which is what all three of those links are) cannot assist passage of WP:GNG at all — they're acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after the article has already passed GNG, but they're not widely distributed and not archived in any place where we could feasibly still access the content for ongoing verification purposes if the website links ever die, so they cannot carry GNG in and of themselves. Newspaper coverage has to be to general market daily papers to count toward showing notability — a university student newspaper may only be used for additional confirmation of facts after GNG has already been satisfied, and cannot bring the passage of GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person was named on some list of 100 people in 2015, a list that comes out every year and has 100 people on it. This is not enough to establish notability. Nothing else is either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If she were temporarily famous for some forgettable event, I'd delete. But she continues to get coverage and attention. Keep with a banner asking for more and newer references.VanEman (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Braylon Heard[edit]

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

Prod contested by IP editor. Undrafted free agent who was cut in training camp, hasn't played a regular-season down in the NFL, and doesn't meet WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:GNG otherwise. --Finngall ^talk 00:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His article indeed states "Offseason and/or practice squad member only" at the NFL. The pointed out WP:NGRIDIRON states a requirement of "at least one regular season or post season game in any one of the following professional leagues". --Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though I have to admit I know little, and maybe it's a case of WP:TOOSOON if he might find success at the lesser professional leagues? In that case the result is the same, but with some comfort to anyone who wishes to keep as he may return. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ the only articles I can find are brief mentions that he "didn't make the cut" -- It's possible a player could be notable for a college career, but I don't see the sources to support that. Fails WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple repliable sources. His college stats aren't eye-catching (348 yards with Nebraska in 2012 and 368 yards with Kentucky in 2014), but the fact is that running backs from Division I FBS (top tier) schools get lots of media coverage. In this case, there is significant coverage out there including (1) this from ESPN.com, (2) this from the Omaha World-Herald, (3) this from the Lexington Herald-Leader, (4) this from The Courier-Journal, (5) this from CBS Sports, (6) this from Sports Illustrated, and (7) this and (8) this from The Advocate-Messenger. Cbl62 (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that this be re-listed so that new sources can be evaluated by others, including those previously casting "delete" votes. Cbl62 (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I switch to Neutral at this time. if CB says to re-evaluate, I think we should do that. Don't have time now, will soon.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate new sources as requested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Find me coverage in secondary sources and I'll readily support keeping, but when the best you can find to keep is primary sources such as news reports, you've confirmed the lack of notability. Nyttend (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence he actually played in a fully pro game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine sports coverage is not enough for WP:GNG and fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Mdtemp (talk) 08:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Church of God (Full Gospel) in India[edit]

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

CSD tagged for promotion, however the article has a history going back some 10 years give or take, and as such I feel an afd is better here just in case a previous version looks to be salvageable. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- However bad the article, this is about a denomination, so that we should have an article on it. If an old version is better, you should revert to it. This is not a case for AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and Userfy actually as my searches found a few links so far but this is all still so questionable and is best put elsewhere where it can be improved until it's acceptable for the mainspace. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; non-minor denominations are considered notable. Stubbing a bad article about a notable topic is generally considered appropriate; I don't see why we couldn't do that here. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack's Broken Heart[edit]

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

NN ephemeral garage band, fails the GNG and WP:BAND going away. The only source listed that wasn't from the band itself is from a now-defunct San Diego arts blog, asserting that the band won a local "Best Alternative Band" award. I've been unable to find a reliable source backing up the assertion.

This was AfDed ten years ago, and kept on a no consensus on the strength of one editor's assertion that "the band has released an album, gone on a tour, and they also have an allmusic profile," followed by several pile-on "What he saids." No evidence that they actually did go on a tour was proffered, and the article itself states that a tour was planned but didn't come off due to the band folding. The only news source mentioning the band has this as its sum discussion: "This one band came through called Jack's Broken Heart, out of California. They came and played a Sunday night show and there were, like, five people there," this from a blog off of the Dallas Observer website. All other top links are from the usual suspects like MySpace, last.fm, YouTube, Allmusic, etc. Ravenswing 11:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. I can imagine a once-important band getting just five people for a concert, but if that happens at your only concert, you're highly unlikely to be notable. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Deb per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ZEVIA (INDIA)[edit]

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

Not notable Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unquestionably advertising. I've speedy deleted it. Deb (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb: The article is recreated. Can you verify whether the earlier issues have been successfully addressed? Or speedy again? Vipinhari || talk 17:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, it's identical to the original version, so I've speedied it again. Deb (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Nyttend per WP:A7. (non-admin closure) —Nizolan ^(talk) 13:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Matter[edit]

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

LL221W (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedual keep, this AfD has no deletion rationale, so there is nothing that can be argued on. The article could use semi-protection to push away trolls, but that's a different issue. --Soman (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Since LL221W simultaneously tagged the article WP:A7 I assume their concern is over the article's notability. —Nizolan ^(talk) 10:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please see the article's history to see why it is not notable. --120.152.27.194 (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted per the nominator's A7 tagging; it gave no real indication of importance, let alone significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Moussambani[edit]

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

~~NN athlete, fails the GNG and WP:NTRACK.~~ Ravenswing 08:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a two time Olympian, he clearly passes WP:NTRACK. I added a source. Nominator apparently did not lift a finger to google this name, this comes up as the second entry immediately after wikipedia. Therefore the nominator fails WP:BEFORE. I suggest this nomination be terminated immediately. Trackinfo (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow wikipedia's own wikilcnks, you would have found him in a second Commonwealth Games, and three World Championships. All of that has attached sources. Trackinfo (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch; withdrawing nomination. I relied on the IAAF page previously linked, which one would have hoped would have had accurate information. Ravenswing 10:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 17:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mariuti Uan[edit]

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

~~NN athlete, no evidence he meets the GNG, fails WP:NTRACK.~~ Ravenswing 08:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a competitor at the World Championships in Athletics, in addition to the previously mentioned Commonwealth Games, he clearly passes WP:NTRACK. I added sources. Nominator apparently fails WP:BEFORE again. Internal wikilnks point directly at evidence of notability, if he would open his eyes. I suggest this nomination be terminated immediately. Trackinfo (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination. I relied on the IAAF page previously linked, which as the sport's sanctioning body one would hope it would have had accurate information. As far as "internal wikilnks" [sic] go, you were the one who added those after the nomination, so I'm at a loss to how I would've consulted links that weren't there. I'd recommend that you be less insulting next time, but a glance at your talk page shows frequent reprimands (and at least one block) for incivility, so that would be pretty pointless. Ravenswing 10:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this instructional, which is why I am posting on the public AfD page. Other people can learn from this too. If you enter a name into a wikipedia search, it will show you the article in bold on top. Below it will show you all other uses of that name. Yes, I added a direct wikilink to the World Championship article, but his name as a participant in the World Championships always existed posted 17 September 2005. This is why I am irate. You didn't try or you would have found it. This information is also first page google, there is no social media blocking or obscuring it, no 10 layer deep search. We have WP:BEFORE as a policy for a reason, so we don't have needless AfD's opened. The point is to make wikipedia better. You as an experienced editor could have googled this name, fixed the problems, maybe even have found the other cute mention about the minibus interrupting the Kiribati national trials (obviously just a few guys racing on a road on that small island) and made the article better. Instead you rushed through and nominated what, a dozen articles for deletion Were all of those nominations as thoughtless as this one? You know what you are doing. Use your knowledge and experience for good, not evil. Trackinfo (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITheater[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN vaporware nominated for deletion back in 2006. The result back then was for "cleanup" -- an exhortation to improve the article. It never has been, and no source exists which is reliable, independent and confers "significant coverage" on the subject. Fails the GNG. Ravenswing 08:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stifle at the first AFD. It didn't get cleaned up, and it won't get cleaned up. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing convincingly better for the applicable software notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why sending stuff to cleanup is pointless. Delete. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Always has been, always will be. As you might expect, for a lark I started going through all the AfDs in which I participated that either closed as keep or had been subsequently recreated. They're almost all cringeworthy. "I think it's important" rationales were common and taken seriously, closes were done on straight up head counts that gave as much credit to SPAs not seen before or since, and pile-on keepers just swallowed whole assertions that never were backed up by any evidence and turned out never to have been true. Ravenswing 19:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current leaders of Seattle[edit]

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

This article has several issues which make me believe that not only is it in an outdated state of disrepair, but there is also no way to salvage it. As stated in the first line of the article, this list may or may not be accurate since 2006. Something like this would be better off as a category, not an article. (Also, I don't recommend redirecting this title since it seems that none of the Seattle-related articles have a section or anything similar listing leaders. [Which, in itself, "leaders" is a rather vague and ambiguous word; does the word refer to governmental leaders, motivational leaders, etc.?]) Steel1943 (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than being arbitrary about the criteria for "leader", what's there is already handled by List of mayors of Seattle, Seattle City Council and Seattle Public Schools. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this were a good format, we'd use it for all similar cities. Better for readers to just go to the Seattle, Seattle City Council, etc. pages. Chris vLS (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of elected officials in Seattle to salvage, as with List of elected officials in Los Angeles and List of elected officials in Bakersfield, California. The criteria are clear: all the officials elected in the City government, plus those representing city residents at other levels of government. Also the Port of Seattle commissioners and the school board. A similarly defined category is also a good idea, per WP:NOTDUP. Whether a government body's chief executive, chief of police, judges, and others are elected or appointed is a defining characteristic so it's meaningful to enumerate them, and to be able to compare what's elected and what's not between cities.
Navigation tools like {{Seattle Government}} are fine as far as they go, but they're defined to include appointed officials like police chief or Seattle Public Utilities director, while excluding other elected such as the school board and Port of Seattle commissioners. The elected officials representing the city are a unique class worthy of a list. I'm surprised there aren't more lists like List of elected officials in Los Angeles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and permanence principle: The title, as it stands, seems to be the sort of time-restricted thing that Wikipedia tries to avoid, at least as a goal. Having the word "current" in there practically guarantees the content will become false once a year or more, rather than merely incomplete. There's a long-standing principle on Wikipedia of article content not being temporarily true on Wikipedia: see, for example, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Relative time references, Wikipedia:Notability is not temporary, WP:EPHEMERAL, WP:PRECISELANG. That sort of constant churn should be left to Portal:Current events, and those folks shouldn't have to keep up on local city events to update articles. It could also be in a navigation template, except that most of the people there would not be separately notable. Also, this seems to violate WP:NOTDIR: A list of all Seattle mayors or something might be in scope; but a current directory is not: Anyone can get the current list from city hall, and if they're not important enough to stay in an article for the next 100 years, they're not important enough now. --Closeapple (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in WP:NOTDIR says anything of the sort. Which part do you think is relevant to a list of current leaders? A leader is not an event, they are an office holder. How is that ephemeral? Saying Andrea Merkel is chancellor of Germany is "likely to be outdated" per WP:EPHEMERAL, but that's not what the guideline is referring to.
There is no "longstanding principle" that you imagine. Just take a look at Wikipedia:Featured lists. List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque? That's very ephemeral. Academy Award for Best Director? Changes every year! List of current Canadian first ministers, List of current Indian chief ministers, List of current Indian governors, List of current members of the Maryland Senate? There are many lists of current officeholders.
"The featured lists are what we believe to be the best lists in Wikipedia. Before being listed here, lists are reviewed as featured list candidates for usefulness, completeness, accuracy, neutrality, style and prose according to our featured list criteria." It takes significant consensus to reach Feature List status, and it's strong evidence that this kind of list is very much accepted, per Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. A simple reading of the relevant policies and guidelines -- Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists -- flatly contradicts your arguments. Wikipedia has nothing like a "not important in 100 years" rule. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemyk[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Greek Legend (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is not suggesting any better satisfying applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total lack of adequate sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Action Gamemaster[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN vaporware. No reliable sources have ever been produced discussing this. I'd have redirected it to the company, but the outfit was an ephemeral one that had only one genuine release, ever, and I question whether it's a useful redirect term.

The "no consensus" verdict of the 2006 AfD was one of the many terrible outcomes common at AfD back then: a pure headcount which took such sentiments as "It might not be notable to you but it is to at least me," "This could be the perfect article. History like this should be recored [sic]," "I don't see why this cannot have its own article either" and the like as valid arguments to keep. Ravenswing 07:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Looking it up on the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, I get a total of five results, four of which are from the same website. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is vaporware that is not notable. ZettaComposer (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 08:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

El Shahbaa[edit]

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

Not very convinced that this mare has notability. Greek Legend (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep I rescued this from speedy deletion and there were several online magazine pieces with some mention. Since this mare was from many decades back I think we can also assume there would have been print media as well. I would therefore recommend keep. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several high-quality sources come up on just a regular Google search; Google books, print books and breed magazines should have fairly broad coverage. In response to below: [6][7][8][9]

White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 14:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@White Arabian Filly: That's pretty laughable. You can't just say that Google gives you hits without even reading what you're trying to use. Please look at those links and you tell me where it even mentions the horse in question, let alone gives more than a passing mention. I don't think arabianheritagesource.com is reliable, either. You and Graeme Bartlett are both guilty of alleging and not reading. I actually read sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that you can't SEE the mention; it's in the book. It says, "5 pages matching El Shahbaa in this book" and that is proof enough. Just because it's on snippet view so people can't copy-paste it and claim it as their own work doesn't mean it isn't in there. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is certainly substantial. For this topic there is no reason to doubt reliability. The sources are print magazines which are beyond blogs in reliability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient references to make a claim of notability. As Graeme Bartlett says "several online magazine pieces with some mention which isn't enough, in my opinion. Take a look at this and this. They're just mere mentions. All the remaining stuff google shows are unreliable websites. Let's see White Arabian Filly's "several high quality sources" because I don't think they exist. I don't see value in keeping this article. If there are other print sources out there someone else can create a new article when they find them, which they probably never will. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Pinging Ealdgyth who has a plethora of hardcopy sources to comment also. Inshass Stud was a major Arabian breeding operation in its time. Judith Forbis is a major scholar of the Egyptian-bred Arabian, and Institute for the Desert Arabian Horse is a respected organization. This is a foundation mare of an important breeding line, classed as Al Khamsa; the article will never be terribly extensive because not a lot is known about her, but she adequately meets the indicia of notability for a horse within the Arabian breed. Montanabw^(talk) 16:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Follow up: I'm doing a little bit of research (my books are at home, I'm at work, and I don't have the reference works on the Egyptian lines, but I'll dig, I do have the Raswan Index). She is listed among the foundation horses by the Al Khamsa organization here (click on INSHASS), which makes her one of only 198 horses granted this status. "Only a mention" in these sources is sufficient. This is not a human being, this is a horse, and her influence was due to the quality of her progeny and how rare her bloodlines are (she only had a single foal whose bloodlines carried on, the mare EL MAHROUSA). We now have at least three online sources that are high quality for equine bloodlines of this horse breed, and the excerpts that WAF provided that only exist in snippet view are additional scholarly works on these bloodlines. The article would benefit from expansion, but it meets GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 17:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- More: These horses from the 1920s and 1930s are hard to find info about, but this source shows that she was horse #12 in the Inshass herdbook, so more biographical verification that she was a significant foundation mare. This source [link redacted Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC) (The Arabian Horse Families of Egypt by Colin Pearson and Kees Mol, 1988)] is a scan of a book by a respected scholar of Arabians and mentions her in brief on pages 124 and 151, providing additional data about her ancestry. this is in French but another mention as a purebred bloodline (pinging Tsaag Valren to translate); here is a mention in a German source (pinging Gerda Arendt for a translation) A few more mentions, showing that this bloodline is notable today and featured in news and advertising : [10], [11]. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. El Shahba'a (الشهباء) is mentioned with her sire (حمداني or حمداني الناصري), dam (عبيه ام الجرسان or عبيه ام جريس), stud (مربط انشاص), date of birth and provenance (محمد ابراهيم الحاج of Cairo) in numerous sources including those mentioned above and:

this listing of the Inshass mares
Egypt's Arab Horses: History and Cultural Heritage by Erwin Adolf Piduch (1988)
The Blue Arabian Horse Catalog" by Jane Llewellyn Ott (1969)

Searching is made a little harder by the various uses of "Shahba'a", particularly as a description of Aleppo, and by the re-use of the name (without the definite article) for an apparently unrelated mare in the 1950s. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More: "El Shaba" (note different – bad – transliteration) is described as "a mare that made history in Egyptian breeding" by Hans Joachim Nagel (2012). Type 4: 141–42. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG as the book sources demonstrate. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the Straight Egyptian Breedig program, El Shahbaa have the biggest Influence today, her descendants are arround te World.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as author-requested — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Karchmer[edit]

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

Possibly not notable? Doesn't seem to be particularly relevant information to anyone outside the immediate area of the works cited. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 07:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar De Sola[edit]

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

Found only one third party source for this museum officer. Greek Legend (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply nothing better actually suggest solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COO of a museum is generally not enough to be notable on its own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 17:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanine E. Jackson[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG I do not think the current sources are "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." She is an American diplomat, so American governmental websites are not the best way to establish her notability. Outside of these sources, I can only come up with brief mentions of her. I would certainly challenge anyone to find some significant coverage of her outside of her work. Jolly Ω Janner 04:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The point of GNG is to exclude stuff written by people (and their associates) who are otherwise of no significance; it's not meant to exclude reliable governmental sources (regardless of the coutnry) talking about major government officials. Ambassadors from major countries are important because of their international diplomacy, and they get coverage both at home and at the receiving nation. Have you checked the Burkinabe printed press? Having worked with the Liberian printed press a good deal, I can assure you that the typical US ambassador there (like the typical ambassador from other major countries) gets plenty of local coverage that never makes it online; the US being a major source of foreign aid, the ambassador routinely gets coverage in documentation (both news reports and secondary sources) regarding foreign-aid projects. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if the subject of the page is indeed a US Ambassador, it seems highly unlikely that she is not going to be getting sufficient press and official government coverage to give notability. There is no requirement for there to be sources outside of her work, if that is how she is noted. JMWt (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sufficient coverage (not fleeting mentions) in Burkinabe press would certainly make her claim to notability acceptable. However, we have no way of checking online and no sources used in the article to cite any such media. It would be rather speculative to to use this as a reason for inclusion. JMWt, I too thought it would be highly unlikely for a US ambassador to not receive sufficient press and official government coverage, but outside of the US ambassador office, there is nothing. It would appear as though being an ambassador isn't an automatic claim for an article. Jolly Ω Janner 18:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have since been able to find this article by AllAfrica, which is dedicated to Jackson's tenure at Malawi. As it is not affiliated with the US embassy or foreign affairs, I'm satisfied that this scrapes past the line on notability. Jolly Ω Janner 19:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AllAfrica actually doesn't write stuff: it's an aggregator for things published by African media organisations, including here the Malawi News Agency. This is a good example of the local coverage that US ambassadors to small countries routinely receive: while the diplomacy side of things is rather minor, and the ambassador's activities in general are rather minor from a US perspective (it's not like Washington's routinely negotiating major trade or international-security deals with Malawi or Burkina Faso), the possibility of US favor toward a small and poor nation is routinely enough to warrant the US ambassador being a major figure (both socially and in the media) in the receiving country. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:POLOUTCOMES I have found sourcing: 2014 Congressional Directory pg. 605, Pg 30, 2010 Congressional Record, CIA's 2010 World Fact Book, 2015 CIA World Fact Book. — Maile (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those source show that she exists, not that she is notable: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". After reading WP:POLOUTCOMES, I'm very doubtful that it is intended for ambassadors. Jolly Ω Janner 21:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone back and forth here between Keep and Comment. I think I'm sticking with Keep. Of course those government links say she exists...as exactly who the article says she is - the Ambassador to Malawi. And I disagree with your argument. Ambassadorships are political appointments. That's our top person representing the United States wherever they are. She is notable. And government publications are not going to publish what amounts to news events or puff pieces unless something extraordinary happens. An ambassador doing their job in a country where nothing blows up and nothing makes the international news cycle, is still notable. And to your credit, your recent editing has improved this article. The Malawai Embassy website archived url you inserted yesterday nails notability. — Maile (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep United States governmental publications are generally considered reliable independent sources. Jackson did not create those publications.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being an ambassador is inherently the same as reaching a notable position within the field of diplomacy. That there are additional sources that can help build the article is a benefit, especially if they are government sources (even if they are from the ambassador's government).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 17:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added more sources and noticed that she comes up in Malawi news quite a bit (but I'm not sure which papers are RS). She passes GNG. She has also been awarded the Distinguished Honor Award. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her position as ambassador from the U.S. is enough to make her meet notability requirements. The information presented by U.S. government publications about her are reliable. And I have found numerous others besides the U.S. government that simply need to be added to the article. This is the kind of article that needs a "help" banner, not a "delete" banner.VanEman (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Thomson (boxer)[edit]

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

Not enough to pass WP:NBOX and very questionably passes WP:GNG. The sources listed are local newspapers and BoxRec, and the creator is a representative for the NZ Boxing Federation who has created article of questionable notability in the past, most of which have been deleted. I think we should take a look at this article, too. JTtheOG (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No enough to meet either WP:NBOX or WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NBOX, as have many others previously created by the same user who is continuing to create more of the same. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost every source in the article links to Boxrec and that's not significant or reliable coverage. Notability is not inherited from who he trains. Mdtemp (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Billings[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Biggest claim to fame is winning Miss Nevada United States; however, this is not a terribly notable beauty pageant (not to be confused with the more well-known Miss Nevada or Miss Nevada USA). Playing very minor TV roles and being an outstanding graduate also don't constitute sufficient indicators of notability. IagoQnsi (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reasons.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other pageant winners are considered notable, solely for their pageant wins: Julianna Erdesz, Georgina Vaughan, Randi Sundquist. The Miss United States Pageant is also notable enough for inclusion. Is a contest's subjective public visibility, relative to other contests, sufficient to determine notability of the winners? rghpkp 19:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I have questions about whether those three people should have articles, and that's given that they won the more notable Miss Nevada or Miss Nevada USA pageants. In fact, Vaughan's article already has a notability tag on it, and if you look at the navboxes at the bottoms of those pages, you'll see that the vast majority of the state winners for Miss America and Miss USA are not listed and do not have articles. I think winning the much less notable Miss Nevada United States is a far cry from being a sufficient indicator of notability. -IagoQnsi (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: rghpkp is a single-purpose account, having done nothing but edit Billings' article and comment on this AfD. -IagoQnsi (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

rghpkp is not a single purpose account, but rather recently created, since my original account appears to be unrecoverable at this time. rghpkp 00:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rghpkp: Well, what's the username of your original account then? -IagoQnsi (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @IagoQnsi:PM me. rghpkp 20:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is still questionable for the applicable notability, nothing solidly better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources, thus failing WP:GNG. Also fails WP:ENTERTAINER as a minor pageant winner and local TV host. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not sure if we have agreed whether winners of Miss Nevada or Miss Nevada USA would be notable (I know this was being debated for such competitions, and I am not sure what we came up with), but Billings won in a pageant we do not even have an article on. Her other claims to fame are even further from notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Henderson (musician)[edit]

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

Google turns up very little independent coverage, and no sources are given in the article other than a link to his facebook page and some course listings. Criteria given in WP:MUSICBIO don't apply to the listed gold albums as he was a producer, not a musician or composer. Also seems rather promotional. —Nizolan ^(talk) 18:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 18:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 19:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 19:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 02:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 02:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:G12 as the article appears to have originally been copy-pasted from [12] by what appears to be an associated band-member, and a lack of available sources do not allow the article to be rescued, so WP:TNT. Awards for records/albums would count towards ANYBIO#1, and if there were RS available to meet the claims, then he might be shown to meet GNG as a producer. A search for "ไซม่อน แฮนเดอร์สัน" (his transliteration) doesn't show much. He's not in the Thai Silly Fools article. He was a judge for SUTASI, but was that competition actually broadcast anywhere and/or significantly covered? The "Briony" (Briohny - th:ไบรโอนี่ - jp:ブライオニー) album referred to appears to be this, but his role is unconfirmed. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches simply found nothing better convincing, only a few links. SwisterTwister talk 03:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ghaznavids. Never close this early but it's better off as a mis-spelling redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghaznavid[edit]

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

This page has been empty since its inception in 2004. Lib arts premed96 (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Ghaznavids, which is what it was since 2004 until an IP editor added the made-up animal classification template today. —Nizolan ^(talk) 02:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Art Beatz[edit]

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

Searches only revealed questionable sources. No evidence of passing either WP:MUSBIO or WP:GNG. SST flyer 01:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 01:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 01:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 01:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The usual self-promotional sites come up on a search: his Instagram site, his Facebook page, his YouTube page, his SoundCloud page, his Twitter feed, a Spotify link, an iTunes link, his Pinterest page ... The only news item that comes up is a brief "interview" that comes off of a press release and put on one of those "citizen journalist" news aggregators, of the sort debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Fails the GNG, no evidence of hitting MUSICBIO. Ravenswing 03:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This Dj does not have any achievement, looks more like promotion.--Fujiiy (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was deleted once before in 2011. "User:NawlinWiki deleted page DJ Art Beatz (A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)". Seems not much has changed, huh? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as simply none of this has minimally better chances of a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juggling

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juggling

[1]

[2]