Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 October	16 October >

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Classical School (Criminology)[edit]

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

incoherent Rathfelder (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can find no refs to suggest there is anything like a "pre-classical" school of thought in criminology. The term is not used at Criminology#Schools_of_thought, and no other articles link here. I can find hits for "Pre-Classical" (not "Pre-Classical school") in criminology texts, but it's only used to reference thinking before the Classical era, not to pick out a particular school of thought. Hairhorn (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's some room for expansion at Criminology#Schools_of_thought for "stuff before the Classical School", basically. But it will need to be referenced better than this. Indeed, there's no indication that pre-Classical criminology is a Named Thing in any reliable sources; there's simply no single, cogent school of thought to refer to in this manner. That this article reads to some extent like machine translation doesn't really do it any favors, either. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Diya Aur Baati Hum. Nom as well as others agree with redirect so closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

En Kanavan En Thozhan[edit]

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

Dubbed serials should not have their own articles until there are major differences, but this has none. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diya Aur Baati Hum, the "base" series, where this is already mentioned (along with the other language-dubbed versions). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support that decision, but the redirect must also be protected to prevent it's re-creation. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diya Aur Baati Hum: The dubbed version is not separately notable and almost all of its contents come from target article. It will better serve as a redirect, as all the information a reader would seek for this topic and we could reliably cover are already present there. Anup [Talk] 22:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diya Aur Baati Hum per above reasons. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by majority consensus. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Social Sciences Research Society[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as rather advertorial with there then also not being anything for actual independent notability and substance, I'm not finding sufficiently better than mentions. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes the article is too short. But other than that, there is nothing wrong with the article. If the society is a non profit society as the article claims, it can't be advertorial.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nedim Ardoğa: I did not nominate it as it is a short article. I did because it doesn't have citations for the information presented. My searches also didn't any reliable sources. It clearly fails WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO on an apparently unremarkable organisation. Appears to be part of the walled garden around Coşkun Can Aktan, whose page the article creator (Special:Contributions/SERDAR_YAY) has significantly expanded. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion per WP:PROMO. There is no indication of significance or notability due to a lack of coverage in independent reliable sources - topic fails WP:ORG and GNG. Also, this may be WP:TOOSOON for this topic - revisit in a couple of years. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7, G11) by David Gerard (non-admin closure) Anup [Talk] 20:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Defrojgil Kathiresan[edit]

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

An IP user (probably a sock) removed the speedy template on this article. It very likely meets A7, but even if it doesn't, it should be deleted. I can't find any evidence of notability. agtx 22:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable computer programmer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Chould've been A7 as I got zero results. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 15:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, only claim to notability is founding a company (that has grammatical errors all over their web page)... Hairhorn (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Death Note characters. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shinigami (Death Note)[edit]

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

This is a mostly in-universe article that fails to establish notability. While there is the conception section, it's filled only by primary sources. TTN (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to List of Death Note characters. Most of these are really, really minor characters. Sro23 (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to List of Death Note characters per Sro23 comments. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shinigami, where it is already listed as a popular culture instantiation. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Death Note characters per above. If any of the Shinigami mentioned in this article are not already in that list, a selective merge is possible, but as most of the characters that fit this criteria are extremely minor characters, I would not personally recommend it.64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No redirect or deletion There are many characters in this article which is not included in List of Death Note characters.So,I think this article is important.Rudra Protap Chackraborty (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick and Harry Loughnane[edit]

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

WP:1EVENT The death of these two brothers does not seem significantly notable. Meatsgains (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another IRA-focused article. I don't understand why so many of these biographies of NN people were made short of partisan purposes. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article; does not meet GNG. Kierzek (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Mandriva Linux#Derivatives. With one exception, nobody wants to keep the history. Sandstein 10:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Linux[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2013. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) No major reviews listed in its entire history at DistroWatch. Only hits from reliable sources in my custom tech sources search were two Softpedia hits for new version releases, but even those were repackaged press releases (full of PR copy, no original reporting). (Rest of hits were largely for Ubuntu's Unity or for the Unity game engine, even after paring down the search.) Only redirect target with any potential would be the mention at Mandriva_Linux#Derivatives, on which Unity Linux is based. czar 21:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar 21:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found this review at TuxRadar and an announcement from de:Pro-Linux, but there doesn't seem to be significant coverage. If we could find some more reviews, that'd be enough to save it, but I'm not too keen on glorified press releases from Softpedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to Mandriva_Linux#Derivatives where it is mentioned. I am not totally sure that mention is due weight, and if we delete it, Unity Linux should not be redirected per WP:SURPRISE. But well, it is a verifiable one-liner, so... Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mandriva Linux#Derivatives (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Preserving the history will allow the redirect to be undone and the article restored easily if more reviews are found. Cunard (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect if needed because there's no need to keep the history and contents if it's in fact not notable, let alone convincing as it's own article, and this software was last active 6 years ago, so it's a long fetch to suggest it could be improved soon; therefore we delete as we have with other articles since it's confirmed as both not notable and unimprovable. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate found one review from TuxRadar. It is possible that more reviews will be found in the future. Redirects are cheap and there is no harm in retaining the history to facilitate a merge or an article restoration if more sources are found. Cunard (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sahrawi Association of Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations Committed by the Moroccan State[edit]

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

Organization lacks significant coverage in reliable sources Meatsgains (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Their work is cited by several reputable agencies over the course of a decade. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article itself says Their work has been cited by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch ... and therefore has significant coverage in reliable sources. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I don't really see any support for the claim that they lack significant coverage. A few published mentions appear in Google Scholar, they've been mentioned in reports by global human rights organizations, and they have a few mentioned in LexisNexis and other news databases (nothing great-but with the other mentions they are ok). I'm not firmly keep, but without some more substantive arguments for delete, this seems to pass. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~But the article should be renamed to the correct name: "Sahrawi Association of Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations."~~ I'm doing research on one of the activists involved, so I'm going to clean this up and add sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, Megalibrarygirl (talk)

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

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

The result was merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peryton (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This article currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TTN:, Please describe what efforts you have made to assess that this article does not represent a notable or improvable target per WP:BEFORE; it'll give the rest of us a good starting point. Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. This is yet another relatively minor monster in D&D lore that is based on a pre-existing mythological creature. There are no real sources that talk in depth about this particular iteration of the creature, and there is no evidence that the D&D specific version of it has had any widespread impact since its introduction in the game. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). -- RoySmith (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medusa (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. There is nothing showing why this particular monster has any particular relevance outside of its mythological basis. The previous AfD was not even a true keep, but rather that outright deletion was not the consensus. As the content is fully in-universe and more relevant to Wikia, outright deletion or some other means of removing the article will provide about the same outcome because there is really noting to merge. TTN (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TTN:, Please describe what efforts you have made to assess that this article does not represent a notable or improvable target per WP:BEFORE; it'll give the rest of us a good starting point. Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the current state of the article, which has nothing despite having existed for almost a decade. I looked at the previous AfD, which has nothing despite various keep votes. I looked at the above searches with a couple different search variations for enough time to believe that further searching would not yield anything valuable. TTN (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). BOZ (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76) per nominator's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). All that really exists on this creature is a bunch of primary sources that have a lot of trivial in-universe information, and nothing that shows any reason why this particular iteration of a very common fantasy/mythology monster has any independent notability. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I found some independent reliable sources: [1], [2] and a very brief but interesting [3]. While independent and reliable, they are not in enough depth to support a standalone article, But they could serve as sources for verification of a selectively merged entry in List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). --Mark viking (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, criterion A7, non-notable person. —C.Fred (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Forgue[edit]

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

Not notable. No outside articles, journals, or newspapers citing this person. Wikipedia requires users to be notable and have verified information. This article appears to be written by the person himself. Wikipedia does not allow Autobiographies or biographies without cited sources. Minoshark1964 (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a newly created article lacking sources, this article could be deletable under WP:BLPPROD. And my searches turned up no sources to indicate notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theda Nelson Clarke[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a now deceased individual whose only notability was involvement with the Wounded Knee incident. The subject was accused of participating in the kidnapping and murder, but never convicted. There's nothing in this article that can't be covered in the Wounded Knee incident article (and most of it already is). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "Poorly sourced article", not grounds for deletion, "now deceased individual", also not grounds for deletion, however WP:ONEEVENT may apply. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

? Many sourcable life facets to be "OneEvent" like Rosa Parks? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added women project to talkpage so participants are notified of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DEL5. We don't keep POV forks, particularly about crime suspects who have not been formally charged. The article seems to be more about vilifying the subject than an objective perspective, with extremely bad sourcing I must add. In any case, this is a BIO1E and best covered in the incident article so as to not give undue weight. I personally do not think a merge should happen here as well, agnostic to a redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PERPETRATOR. According to notability, "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime... has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." Given the documented involvement of the subject in the infamous and well-covered murder of Anna Mae Aquash, the subject warrants inclusion of their own page. Silver Buizel (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except that it's not well-documented. Nearly all of the sources with details about Clarke's involvement are blogs. Refer to reliable sources policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jamie, there are a number of non-blog reliable sources supporting the article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

Comment The few reliable sources I've seen mention Nelson Clarke as a suspect who was never charged; that's about it. There simply isn't enough that's well-sourced to merit a separate article on this person vs a few sentences of coverage in Wounded Knee incident. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per topic meeting WP:PERP and bring in additional available sources to expand over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PERP, and hope that some editor is willing to weed out the many unreliable sources now in article and improve it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PERP, per WP:GNG. bad article standard is irrelevant to notability guidelines.BabbaQ (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dalminist Movement[edit]

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

A non-notable movement. Does not appear to be supported by reliable secondary sources and is hard to distinguish from a hoax. Does not meet WP:GNG. GregorB (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A hoax, basically. It's someone's fake movement promoted on http://dalmazia.wikia.com/wiki/Dalminizam. It failed to gain traction even on Forum.hr, let alone in serious media. "Dalminizam" has grand total of 5 (five) google hits. No such user (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nobody contests deletion, notability appears borderline at best, and as reported here, the subject himself has requested deletion via OTRS. Sandstein 11:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Shaw (theatre director)[edit]

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

With quite a few Robert Shaws existing, I had some difficulty with my work BEFORE nominating the page, but everything I found relating to this Shaw was one-sentence mentions of "run by Shaw" or "translated by Shaw." The references in the article do little more than this as well. At this time it appears he is a MILL director and does not meet GNG. Primefac (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks coverage to establish notability as a director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the subject of the article contacted OTRS (VRTS ticket # 2016101510004124) and provided the following references, commenting: "This list by no means comprehensive but it is what I have been able to find in the last half hour or so. I’m fairly sure most of these mention me by name. If any of them don’t, they are still about me in the sense that they are a review of my work."

http://www.threeweeksedinburgh.com/article/robert-shaw-inside-intelligence-on-the-fringes-new-play-thriller/

http://www.whatsonstage.com/london-theatre/reviews/the-medium-the-wanton-sublime-arcola-theatre_38611.html

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/07/sylvia-plath-radio-play

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/theater/26plath.html?_r=0

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/dec/03/sylviaplath-poetry

http://www.whatsonstage.com/edinburgh-theatre/news/08-2011/robert-shaw-on-isadora-duncan-_8082.html

http://oughttobeclowns.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/review-product-arcola.html

http://bargaintheatreland.com/the-wanton-sublime-and-the-medium-arcola-theatre-london/

http://www.whatsonstage.com/london-theatre/reviews/the-medium-the-wanton-sublime-arcola-theatre_38611.html

http://playstosee.com/the-wanton-sublime-and-the-medium/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opera/what-to-see/grimeborn-festival-arcola-review/

http://www.reviewsgate.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8184

http://civiliantheatre.com/2015-2/the-medium-the-wanton-sublime

http://www.thestateofthearts.co.uk/2015/08/27/plainchant-meets-plain-crazy-at-this-years-grimeborn-festival

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/stage/edinburgh-festival/article4179896.ece

http://www.timeout.com/london/theatre/mark-ravenhill-product-review

http://edinburghfestival.list.co.uk/article/63165-mark-ravenhill-product/

http://exeuntmagazine.com/reviews/product/

http://www.broadwaybaby.com/shows/mark-ravenhill-product/701299

http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/reviews/product-assembly-hall-10486

http://www.whatsonstage.com/edinburgh-theatre/reviews/08-2014/product-ravenhill-poulet_35292.html

http://www.femalearts.com/node/2616

https://benhuxleyblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/30/review-poena-5x1/

http://www.edfestmag.com/poena-5x1-or-how-i-came-to-agree-with-the-right-wing-thinking/

http://www.broadwaybaby.com//shows/poena-5x1/713962

http://www.theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2016/08/edinburgh-festival-fringe-2016-review-poena-5x1/

http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/reviews/poena-5x1-underbelly-med-13178

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/reviews/teddy-and-topsy-old-red-lion-londonbrhenri-oguike-linbury-studio-london-2240291.html

http://www.timeout.com/london/dance/review/2130/teddy-topsy

http://thepublicreviews.blogspot.com/2009/01/3-women-jermyn-street-theatre.html

http://ind.pn/hlh9DA

http://www.edfestmag.co.uk/fringe/theatre/1217-sylvia-plath-three-women-the-first-revival

http://www.fringereview.co.uk/fringeReview/3045.html

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/festivals-2009/Theatre-review-Sylvia-Plath-.5548668.jp

http://edinburgh.threeweeks.co.uk/review/7459

http://www.broadwaybaby.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7235

http://www.edinburghguide.com/festival/2010/edinburghfringe/poemwithoutaheroreview-6123

http://edinburgh.threeweeks.co.uk/review/9387

http://theater.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/theater/reviews/28plath.html

http://www.nytheatre.com/nytheatre/showpage.php?t=thre11079

http://www.theasy.com/Reviews/threewomen.php

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/interactive/2009/jan/07/robert-shaw-sylvia-plath

http://sylviaplathinfo.blogspot.com/2010/10/i-have-never-seen-thing-so-clear-sylvia.html

http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-10-13/theater/dead-poet-doubleheader-wish-i-had-a-sylvia-plath-and-three-women/

http://www.backstage.com/bso/content_display/reviews/ny-theatre-reviews/e3id03412c644d4e5cd0982c69250db4322

http://newyork.timeout.com/arts-culture/theater/333903/three-women

http://www.edinburghguide.com/festival/2010/edinburghfringe/teddyandtopsyreview-5944

http://www.edinburghspotlight.com/2010/08/fringe-review-teddy-and-topsy-c/

http://ed.thestage.co.uk/reviews/917

http://www.whatsonstage.com/reviews/theatre/edinburgh/E8831282572755/Some+Gorgeous+Accident.html

http://www.edinburghguide.com/festival/2010/edinburghfringe/somegorgeousaccidentreview-6299

I did not check all of those references in detail; merely looking at the URLs some seem to be blogs and likely do not meet our standards of reliability. Of those I did look at, few devoted more than a single sentence to Mr Shaw himself. The best I'm aware of are the NYT and The Guardian, the first of which is already cited in the article itself. Huon (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got bored and decided to go through them all. There is definitely enough in here to have an article on Inside Intelligence, but half the articles didn't even mention Shaw by name, and all but three of the rest were variations on "...directed by Shaw". The final three ([4] [5] [6]) are just interviews (and more talk about the plays themselves). For the record, I was not counting the NYT/Guardian articles given by Huon that are already in the article. Primefac (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - according to more recent communication via OTRS, Mr Shaw would like to see the article deleted as soon as possible. So the above is not meant to be taken as an attempt to stave off deletion. Huon (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hispano-Argentina. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hafdasa C-4[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm; search in English and Spanish failed to turn up any reliable sources with more than trivial mentions. Redirect to manufacturer was reverted by an IP; recommend restoring redirect. ansh 666 17:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 18:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 18:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 18:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to manufacturer; otherwise not notable for stand alone article based on what is shown/presented. Kierzek (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, copy over only sourced material. This article has extremely thin sourcing. The subject does not appear to be notable. Felsic2 (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect, this is a difficult one to find sourcing about in either language. It also appears that Argentina made at least 2 different smg's named the "C-4" from the same factory, this one and a Sten clone.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Essentially deleted under WP:G5/WP:BE. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AwardPunjabi and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandhir Singh Chahal for further details. Mkdw ^talk 03:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mandhir Singh (Chahal)[edit]

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

This had been previously deleted, under a slightly different title, then recreated, re-deleted under WP:G4, and brought to deletion review. The result there was to restore and bring back to AfD for another look. This is an administrative action only; I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user who created this article in currently blocked on suspicion of being a sockpuppet and can not contest this deletion. I believe it is better to unblock the user and then take a decision here.--Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 02:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The article has nothing better than it was before. Clearly no coverage in independent reliable soruces to pass GNG and at best is a WP:BLP1E. GSS (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best this is a BLP1E. No significant coverage otherwise. Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory of every minor pageant winner. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would say this was a WP:BLP1E, but as it is, it's very difficult to say that he's even notable for that one event! The event itself doesn't have an article and doesn't seem especially notable, much less each of its winners... or in this case, each of its nominees. BLP1E has: "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." FalconK (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirects can be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thamco[edit]

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

Delete or Merge into Neobus (Brazil). 1900toni (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Neobus (Brazil) as a valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Thamco" isn't mentioned in the article and none of what's at Thamco looks to be mergable so IMHO it's better off deleted (Ofcourse if Northamerica1000 (or anyone else) can somehow merge I'd be happy to go with redirect but at the moment the article is worded somewhat promotionally, –Davey2010^Talk 23:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and only redirect if actually needed, because everything that is listed is simply the basic information about this company, and its fate of being acquired by someone else; there's nothing to suggest any serious significance or substance from that, and it's not going to happen either. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Kieliszewski[edit]

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

This article appears on first look to have lots of sources. However about half only make passing mention to Kieliszewski or establish she was a contestant in Miss Michigan in a given year. The fact that she was a six time contestant for the Miss Michigan crown creates lots of mentions of her. However none of them rise to the level of more than local coverage. While a little of the coverage of her Miss Michigan win is more than purely local, it is all still in Michigan. There is only one event, her winning the Miss Michigan crown, that gets any note. Unless we are prepared to declare Miss Michigan a title that gives its winner automatic notability, there is nothing in the coverage more than routine for coverage of such winners. So we have no reason to think there is enough to consider her notable. Thus we should delete the article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES; nothing stands out about this subject to warrant an article per WP:WHYN.K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as only best known for the 1 state event and there's nothing at all for the needed substance of a convincing article along with the substantial information. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The rewritten/stubified version still does not appear to pass muster with most discussants. MelanieN (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Limeroad.com[edit]

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

My extensive PROD nearly immediately removed boldly with the thin and unconvincing basis of "news exists", but my concerns explicitly stated that the news found are simply what the company advertises about itself (which is not surprising) or then other simple trivial and unconvincing coverage. My PROD essentially explains everything so I still confirm it. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete per nom~~ it's been cleaned up since the PROD, but the sourcing is still really bad and too much of it actually fails verification - David Gerard (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Duplicate !vote struck. Unscintillating (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)][reply]

Keep Sadly the company does find mention in the newspapers such as The Economic Times, Mint (newspaper) and Hindustan Times which makes it notable according to WP:CORP

Fashion curation apps like LimeRoad, WithMe, Voonik are carving a business out of recommending what to wear
Indian fashion scrapbooking site LimeRoad raises 30 million dollar Series C
LimeRoad to redemption: Why e-com troubles make Suchi Mukherjee happy
Fashion e-tailer Limeroad enters menswear segment

The title seems misleading. It should be renamed to Limeroad or LimeRoad (The choice of capital R in between is deliberate here going by some articles and .com only suggests its an e-commerce website). Also the "Partnerships,"Online Traffic" and " Awards and Recognition" parts of the article are unsalvageable. It seems to be a stub after all these editing but the company seems to pass the notability test as per the verifiable sources. vivek7de--tAlK 16:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT -- unsalvageable even if the company is notable. Check out this contribution diff, which restored 3500 worth of promo content, while removing the AfD template. No point to keep this garbage in article history. No prejudice to recreation as LimeRoad if notability can be proven and better RS exist (which is not likely per the current state of things). But maybe the company will become more notable in the future, who knows? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is written like an advertisement. Runku4g (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 22:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've blocked the article creator Himanshu.butta (talk · contribs) for spamming. Discussion should focus on whether the sanitized version of the article is worth keeping. Sandstein 15:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sanitized version. It may be doomed to be a stub forever, but there are no rules against that. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sanitised version. It's a bit better, but I'm still unconvinced by the sourcing. (Also, why are we sourcing claims about an Indian company's activities in India to not merely an English paper, but an English tabloid.) - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: did you mean for there to be a whole new discussion after the break, or is there a duplicate !vote above? Safehaven86 (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It was specifically phrased as discussion of the sanitised version, so I proceeded discussing that in particular as should be reasonably clear from both Sandstein's actual words and mine - David Gerard (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your original vote was also in reference to the cleaned up version, hence my inquiry here. I don't think it's standard to !vote twice at AFDs. I also don't think it's standard to respond to good-faith questions with condescension, but it appears irresistible for you to do so. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am saddened by your assumption of bad faith - David Gerard (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I addressed a reasonable and legitimate question directly to a different editor, and you responded with the assertion that the answer to my question was "reasonably clear." Obviously it wasn't "reasonably clear" to me, otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question. And you didn't exactly "proceed with discussion", you in fact cast a whole new !vote, hence my very reasonable question about whether users were supposed to cast entirely new !votes after the break, or merely proceed with a discussion of a particular version of the article. The bad faith here was yours, not mine. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is still the same discussion, so everybody's opinion only counts once. Sandstein 05:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the "sanitised version" is equally unconvincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to be sanitized or not to be, that is the question: whether 'tis nobler to accept one version over the other; to suffer the slings and arrows of sources that are only PR, repackaged PR, company announcements, company sourced interviews, mundane financial information - Or to take arms against a sea of promotion and say, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO. Alas, to be lacking in GNG and CORPDEPTH is the true state of each version. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If this article does get deleted then I also suggest putting up Voonik for deletion as it has the same "sea of promotion" in it. vivek7de--tAlK 19:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks pretty promotional, do a WP:BEFORE and if you can't find stuff that convinces you then by all means put it up for deletion, you don't have to wait on this AFD - David Gerard (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not really convinced that it meets NCORP and add to that the promo pressure, I go with a delete. The sources are also not very convincing. For example, ET has a very brief coverage (~150 words) out of which 100 words are quotes by the founder and investor. HT is an interview of the founder which is not useful per WP:CORPIND. Business Standard is a vert brief coverage about funding. LiveMint is probably the only source which is somewhat better but not enough. The company has been trying to promote itself but it doesn't seem to have received enough secondary attention.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well over the top for GNG as well as CORP. International coverage in the UK, and coverage of A. M. Marketplaces Pvt Ltd. in businessweek.com, link, are further evidence. The only question worth asking is, since it is a startup from 2012, does it satisfy SUSTAINED? This company seems to be beyond just a potential if they are claiming 10000 merchants. As usual, WP:PROMO specifies NPOV, which means that we are required to report why the company has commercial appeal, else the article would not be NPOV (and thus fail WP:PROMO). Unscintillating (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberle Mae Penchon[edit]

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

No significant coverage. She did not win the national pageant. Her name was already included in the Binibining Pilipinas 2016 article as a contestant. Richie Campbell (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable beauty pageant winner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable beauty pageant winner. Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 13:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-major-pageant winner.--RioHondo (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Get Rich Slowly[edit]

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

Just another one like The Next Web or YourStory. Made for Promotions by promotions alone and nothing else. High degree of promotions. Article itself cites Once in a lifetime coverage by popular media as grand achievement they have made. Clearly influenced by blog people and nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; an unremarkable web site affiliated with a non notable entity J.D. Roth. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom apart from the cited sources being literally two op-ed mentions, WP:BEFORE for me brings up the actual phrase and nothing about the company in RSes - David Gerard (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Nickinson[edit]

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

Insignificant, non-notable. Wikipedia will become a Biography Hub for such people. Light2021 (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per the sources in the article. Passes WP:GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 23:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject references are only "mere mentions" needs independent reliable source.--Historical Ben (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC) WP:SOCK vote struck ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not independently notable in re Android Central. Strictly a vanity page at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not achieved. This vapidly written BLP gets its sources only from Churnalism. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability - David Gerard (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AnandTech[edit]

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

Just another one like The Next Web or YourStory. Made for Promotions by promotions alone and nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this was a super-important news site in its day, and I recall the genuine organic third-party journalism when it was eventually being sold by the founder - David Gerard (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not an unfair nomination I must note, the article isn't great and is a bit too much like the usual tech site article - David Gerard (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important review/benchmarks website in its days, broad coverage in reliable sources. Pavlor (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article result was keep at first AFD See This — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historical Ben (talk • contribs) 21:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- found this mention, for example: Build It. Fix It. Own It: A Beginner's Guide to Building and Upgrading a PC by Paul McFedries, where AnandTech appears in a list alongside Ars Technica. Appears to be noted in its space. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's got pretty good coverage, such as [7] and [8] from TechCrunch. It's difficult sometimes to separate the site's coverage from that of its founder, but both have made headlines in the tech press over the years. Like the others have said, AnandTech was one of the most important and popular tech websites for a long time. Doing a Google Books search will turns up numerous books that recommend it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh. Personally I think the founder article's a prospect for merging into this one, as the notable thing he did ... - David Gerard (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major technology news website with substantial original reporting which has been cited as a source by many other major publications. It used to be an Alexa 2500 website before it was sold (which is pretty good for a news site). 69.159.54.56 (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see enough reliable sources to take it to the threshold of notability.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Datchanamoorthy Ramu[edit]

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

I don't see enough coverage to show that the subject is notable. In fact, I was not able to find any references in a reliable English language source from India. The entire article reads like a resume and it seems the subject is an aspiring activist, but not yet notable enough for an article. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable human rights activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FreeOS[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of available sources. - Mr X 13:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any coverage by independent sources (despite evidently very active self-promotion). Charitably WP:TOOSOON.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mamiko Tayama[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mamiko Tayama (2nd nomination)

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

Not notable member of two groups and has released a number of undetermined singles. Fails WP:MUSIC criteria.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands - searching her name on oricon.co.jp suggests to me she may well pass, but I can't get enough solid information from Google Translate to confidently assert we have enough to keep this BLP - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salting can be requested at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dim Effect[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable term with no currency. The examples added since the last AFD are all WP:OR arguing for the existence of the effect, but the refs do not verify either the term itself or the alleged effect of "nature mimicing art". I declined this as a prod due to the previous AFD and the fact that user:Bob the Wikipedian had restored it (apparently unilaterally) in order to improve it with the added examples. However, I still believe this should be deleted and would have speedied it as a G4 if it were not for its history. SpinningSpark 13:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No notability, totally vapid article. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This phrase is essentially unique to Ratcliffe's rhinoceros beetle paper; even the scant few papers that cited it don't appear to have cared about the observed similarity between a real insect and a Pixar character. The other references don't use the phrase (and not all of them even make the art-to-nature connection explicitly). Essentially, this article rests at the intersection of WP:NEO, WP:OR, and simply WP:MADEUP--even if it did find its way into publication in a peer-reviewed journal about beetles. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at first reading, I thought the "dim effect" was nature evolving into something that was represented in art beforehand; this already has all redflags for WP:FRINGE. But actually it is about natural features being discovered after their artistic representation. Well, pareidolia and Littlewood's law jump to mind, and in any case it is not "nature mimicking art" for causality reasons.

Evading any reasonable scientific threshold for minority theories, this must be weighted against WP:GNG. Need I say it fails completely? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 that this topic does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AntLang[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of available independent sources. - Mr X 12:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. Can't find any coverage in independent, reliable sources. Kolbasz (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything third party about it in a basic WP:BEFORE through Google, GNews, GBooks and GScholar. It's possible someone else's filter bubble might be more forthcoming ... - David Gerard (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Per above as nominator, lacks WP:GNG.--Historical Ben (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After removal of sockpuppets no keep !votes remain. Their arguments also lack evidence of notability, anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matheus Soares[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

produced by a non notable label. Fails WP:MUSICBIO in spite of the barrel-scraping of the Internet for sources. This page has all the hallmarks of a commissioned work and the author has a clear COI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Is there anything of value in that REFBOMB? - David Gerard (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep This page should be kept, Matheus Soares is a remarkable Brazilian DJ and very important for music, known for playing the happy holi festival with Chris Leão Matheusfreire (talk) 11:44, 15 outubro 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet
keep This page belongs to an important DJ, Brazil, one of the youngest and has stood out among young people, already made a presentation to the DJ and model Chris Leão Marcos Pitombo —Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet[reply]
keep This page should remain to be a living person who deserves maximum respect, besides being an important DJ, Producer Brazil, which is a young prodigy who is revelation of electronic music, has already made a presentation at festivals and with the DJ and model Chris Leão Christian Steiberg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Please also note for those voting keep above that this is not a majority vote. If you do not address policy when commenting here, your vote literally means nothing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hello, according to Wikipedia, the "free encyclopedia" my vote is fully valid, I am part of the community and have the right and freedom to my vote and opnion just like any other member, but this page should remain as it is important and it is about a living person, after all the encyclopedia is free .. Christian Steiberg (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet[reply]
  - Of course Christian Steiberg you have the right to vote here and it is greatly encouraged when it is relevant. However, having personal respect for someone, saying it's important but providing no source as to why, and stating the person is alive does nothing for providing a reason to keep this page. Address policy issues with the page or it will be deleted, pure and simple.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Marcos Pitombo and Christian Steiberg are Confirmed sock puppets of Matheusfreire. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matheusfreire.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus on a redirect, but definitively that the sources provided so far (and not just asserted to exist without evidence) do not support an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remothered[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

No evidence of notability. Fail WP:GNG. - Mr X 12:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: References does not prove the subject is notable.--Historical Ben (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

_{Striking vote of CU confirmed sock. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)}[reply]

I can't review these sources at work, but they are all listed at WP:VG/RS: RPS 1, Siliconera, 4gamer, RPS 2, GameInformer. From the Google preview, that's probably enough for a line or two somewhere in the either the Clock Tower series article or one of the video games in that series. As a result, merge the WP:RS content. --Izno (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After review, delete: there are no secondary sources covering the topic in depth. --Izno (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it's a largely reliable subjet into indie universe of gaming full of sources everywere on the web.--Gibenormann (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC) — Gibenormann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge per Izno ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: remothered is an important chapter into indipendent game universe. just take a look on the web googlin 'remothered'--Follyinman (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC) — Follyinman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note to the closing admin: I believe Follyinman and Gibenormann may be socks. --Izno (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Izno's sources would theoretically be good, but they either don't mention the game or are cursory mentions (hits were likely because of reader comments). Nothing near significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) so as to warrant a separate article. czar 05:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I was pretty sure I saw at least one source which wasn't in-passing, but I can take a look tonight when I get home. Even in-passing is fine for a brief mention (a sentence) in another article since the only requirements on the point are WP:WEIGHT--and the merge target doesn't exactly have much content as it is. --Izno (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but there are no such sources @Dissident93 courtesy ping czar 15:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to Clock Tower would work at the very least then. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dissident93: That redirect would be deleted at WP:RFD because its topic would not be mentioned in the target article. I've stricken my !vote after review. --Izno (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not discussed in reliable sources. Until there's some substantial content written by some RSs, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. TarkusAB 02:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Siblinghood of the Adjoined Orbs[edit]

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

No evidence of notability - 27 ghits of which the most likely says account suspended, first ref doesn't mention them, 2nd doesn't work. No justification for a merge either that I can see. Doug Weller talk 11:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL7 There's no reliable third party sources available to even verify the information. No need to merge as well. I will remove the merge templates after this AfD. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going ahead and removing the merge tag from the target article (Neo-Druidism). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The last real edit was when the header was put up more than three years ago. No reason to think this is notable. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 00:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ~~I'm also unable to find evidence for notability sufficient to maintain the page, nor sufficient supported information to include in a page on Neo-Druidism. Klbrain (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)~~. Have now found one book that has the name of the group in the title: "Druidry, including: Druid, Bard, Gorsedd, Wicker Man, Druidcraft, Vates, Druids' Glass, Taillten Fair, Gorsedd Stones, Cythraul, Ritual Of Oak And Mistletoe, Dryw, The Siblinghood Of The Adjoined Orbs, Menai Massacre" by Hephaestus Books, ISBN-13 9781242678547, ISBN-10 1242678549. I haven't been able to read the book, so can't confirm the contents; but perhaps its a wiki book/mirror? I'm further confused by the talk page entry at Talk:The Siblinghood of the Adjoined Orbs which describes this as a fictional religion created by a group called "Lost and Found". Perhaps the lost and found tent at Bestival. So, overall, smells like a Bestival spoof.[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Republican News[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Note that this organization is referenced on a site ([9]) that shares a name with Sinn Fein but is not that political party's actual website. agtx 05:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Passes WP:CORPDEPTH as publication is referenced in multiple locations on Wikipedia ([10]). Note that site ([11]) mentioned above refers to the Sinn Féin movement and newspaper Sinn_Féin_(newspaper) founded in 1905 that gave rise to multiple extant political parties and publications, such as Republican_Sinn_Féin and Official Sinn Féin, now the Workers'_Party_of_Ireland, as well as Sinn_Féin. Crossborder (talk • contribs) 10:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)— Crossborder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:NPOV. An uncited corporate essay with questionable POV: "... independent publisher of news on the republican struggle for a just, peaceful, and united Ireland. WTF does this even mean? No prejudice to recreation if can done with reliable source. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has been edited to pass WP:V and WP:NPOV and to use language more appropriate to an encyclopaedia, and citing information which can be verified easily. Noting that as there is not an objection to the article as such, the discussion on style and content would be better served on the discussion page for the article itself, rather than through the process of deletion and recreation. Crossborder (talk • contribs) 10:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)— Crossborder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This doesn't solve the major notability problem. The key reason for deletion is that there are no secondary source mentions of this organization. agtx 15:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the article still retains a problematic POV, as in "...from the point of view of Irish Republicanism". What the heck is "POV of Irish Republicanism"? No value to the project at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This comment seems directed at the idea of subjective news. Almost all political news fits into this category, such as Counterpunch, "described as left-wing" according to Wikipedia. Irish Republicanism is a political philosophy dating back over 200 years. Look it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrossBorder (talk • contribs)

This is ridiculous. IRN is older than Wikipedia and probably older than you, agtx. There are scores of references on Wikipedia itself and here are some other secondary sources:

Global Report http://www.globalreport.org/ireland/

Bucknell University http://www.bucknell.edu http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/rickard/irish.html

Earth Newspapers http://www.earthnewspapers.com http://www.earthnewspapers.com/Ireland-Newspapers/index.html

WorldNewspapers.com http://www.world-newspapers.com/ http://www.world-newspapers.com/northern-ireland.html

Info Nordirland http://www.info-nordirland.de http://www.info-nordirland.de/new_256_e.htm

Divided We Stand, by John Horgan https://books.google.ie/books?id=39ZBAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=%22divided+we+stand%22+%22irish+republican+news%22&source=bl&ots=YKPJ8JR8Ln&sig=1P2rr_-dFqAif0bS_cSTYjzD6I8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDwO-DuNPPAhVLnBoKHRm0BxkQ6AEIITAB

Ancestry.com http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlker/kercivwar.html

4inm.com http://www.4imn.com/reviews/829.htm

Ancient Order of Hibernians http://laohtrinity4.tripod.com/id11.html

The Inquistr http://www.inquisitr.com/3253328/could-brexit-lead-to-a-united-ireland/

Newstral http://newstral.com/en/article/en/1028080750/-brexit-vote-denies-the-national-rights-of-the-irish— Preceding unsigned comment added by CrossBorder (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DEL7. There are no third party reliable secondary sources to verify the information. We should not keep such articles until reliable secondary sources talk about it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The argument that the coverage establishes WP:GNG-based notability carries the day. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben LeCompte[edit]

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

Not notable college football player. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm more inclined to make an exception for this player: two-time all-American for Division I-FCS, and punters are far more likely to move from FCS to NFL. I found this article and video in the news that points toward notability. Others include Chicago Daily Herald and Brainered Dispatch. These point to passing WP:GNG based on coverage and college career.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Chicago Daily Herald piece constitutes significant coverage. Another is this from the Chicago Sun-Times. Cbl62 (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His actions in college do not reach the level of notability there, he does not pass the guidelines for pro-gridiron players. He does not meet our guidelines at present, which are the absolute minimum it is reasonable to create an article with in the case of football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question is if he passes GNG. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed failing WP:NGRIDIRON does not mean notability is not achieved, there are multiple paths to notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

+3. Subject-specific guidelines (sometimes referred to as secondary notability guidelines) do not trump WP:GNG or other subject-specific guidelines guidelines such as WP:BIO. Also, meeting WP:GRIDIRON, which dictates presumed notability, is not an "absolute minimum" for an American football player to qualify for an article on Wikipedia at all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG with sources presented by Paul McDonald and Cbl62. Additional sources, [12][13][14][15][16] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources, although on a slightly weaker level, as some of the articles are a bit short in length/coverage. However, several sources are longer and provide a sufficient depth of coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kolkata Knight Riders. Exactly how much text to reuse is up to whoever performs the merge , but User:Northamerica1000 provides some good guidance. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No Dada No KKR[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Delete~~ Selective merge to Kolkata Knight Riders -Notability not asserted despite a plethora of links. Has all the hallmarks of paid advocacy, but is not necessarily so.

Reference 1 discusses the exclusion of Ganguly, but nowhere mentions anything about the group.(Is relevant to the background section).
Reference 2 is offline.The short title does not suggest any link with the group.
Reference 3 contains material about the group but in all probability fails WP:RS.
Reference 4 is stale and non-rcoverable.
Reference 5 contains material about the group but in all probability fails WP:RS esp. when it asks citizen journalists to write it's own news!
Reference 6 is gathered from a Facebook source. Fails WP:RS.
Reference 7 discusses the exclusion of Ganguly, but nowhere mentions anything about the group.
Reference 8 discusses the hindrance caused by other teams to the intention of late-inclusion exclusion of Ganguly by a particular IPL squad, but nowhere mentions anything about the group.It is cited in the signature campaign section, to the effect that it was their signature campaign that lead to the meeting but the report nowhere mentions it!
Reference 9 contains strong material about the group but in all probability fails WP:RS as could be perceived from the amateur reporting. Also like Ref. 5 it has a feature allowing common public to submit reports of incidents which is probably the case here!
Reference 10 is seemingly the most reliable reference and passes WP:RS.But, again the article does not even hints about the slightest mention of the group!
Reference 11 is also similarly reliable and passes WP:RS.And is probably the lone article across the web discussing about the group.
Reference 12 is stale.
Reference 13 comes not only from the same website in Ref-9 but also from the same reporter in the same tone, containing strong material about the group but fails WP:RS.

Basically, the entire article is about a fan-club,evidenced in a single verifiable source. Further the article uses sources which are dubious regarding the activities of the group but uses perfectly reliable sources for justification of general incidents.

(Details and research provided by ARUNEEK)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once you chop out two-thirds of this material per WP:NOTFANSITE, you're left with one threat of protest by sports fans, written by Press Trust of India and republished in a couple places as well as Reference #11, the "lone" reference. That doesn't convince me of WP:GNG. ARUNEEK is wrong insofar as Facebook's Ganguly fans plan protest march is still online. This content belongs elsewhere as there's no rationale for a standalone article. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kolkata Knight Riders: Subject fails both, WP:ORG and WP:NEVENT. There are however some one-time coverage of the incident/controversy here, and it could very well be summarised into target article.

@Chris troutman: I agree that contents of the article under discussion belong somewhere else, probably into Kolkata Knight Riders? Anup [Talk] 19:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupmehra: Nope. I've learned my lesson. I'm just supporting deletion from now on when the case merits. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Kolkata Knight Riders, which presently has no mention of this protest group and its actions. A relatively brief synopsis of this group at the merge target article will serve to improve that article by making it more comprehensive and up-to-date. This is congruent with providing an accurate encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, which is one of the most important aspects of Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sole keep !vote is not addressing the concerns about meeting Wikipedia's notability standards. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neftçi–Qarabağ rivalry[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting the criteria; see WP:NRIVALRY. Spiderone 09:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No delete. Because it is Azerbaijan football derby. I think it real name "Derby of Azerbaijan".--☜❶☞Cavid (talk)☜❶☞ 10:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got any evidence of this? I've even looked on the Azerbaijani language article and can't find anything to suggest notability. Spiderone 10:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor rivalry that doesn't appear to be notable Seasider91 (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Eldumpo (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY. No indication of wider GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benghazi derby[edit]

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

Nothing more than a collection of results between two teams. No evidence of WP:NRIVALRY being met. Spiderone 09:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, no notability shown. Eldumpo (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable rivalry Seasider91 (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything to even hint at a notability claim in searches of three news databases. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY. No indication of wider GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meet Okba derby[edit]

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

None of the sources provided even show the existence of a rivalry between these two teams let alone the rivalry being notable. Compare this article with Cairo derby, which just about meets WP:NRIVALRY. Spiderone 09:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence article is notable. Eldumpo (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY. No indication of wider GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism International 2009[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The winner was already added in the main article, Miss Tourism International. Richie Campbell (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an indiscriminate collection of information on a non-notable topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTSTATS. The winner's name in the main article is enough here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Troubleshooters[edit]

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

not notable firm; all of the notices and minor awards are routine for any business of this sort. A concentration of really minor awards and promotional articles is characteristic of an attempt to write a promotional article about a minor company. In this case, I noticed not just that the awards are minor, but the standing in the award lists are quite low. Nobody writing about a truly notable company would bother including such material. Including it always means that there is simply nothing betterSome of the articles like this are done by paid editors; some by good-faith editors copying what the paid editors do, because they think it's what we want here. It's time to remove the bad examples. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as nom says the awards are all minor. The coverage merely confirms facts about the company rather than indepth to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per DGG and LibStar. Number 282 on a nonnotable list is not evidence whoever wrote this had better evidence of notability to hand. Basic WP:BEFORE shows me press releases and passing mentions - David Gerard (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's no evidence of notability, and as DGG notes its content is highly characteristic of a promotional article. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey D'Silva[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR: She was the 2nd runner up at Miss India Worldwide 2014 and she has appeared in some episodic Indian tv shows as stated in the article but I'm unable to find any source to verify also not sure if she has done any major role in any tv show. I also can not find any significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for a stand-alone article at least not yet. GSS (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by blocked sock

~~Keep~~ - i do not know how can anyone so judgemental about any article . please do research . here is my point of view ... she is working as presenter in Bollywood in last so many years . recently she host dandiya night in Mumbai and in during Indian princess she won the best body title. this event held in Thailand and hosted by Minissha Lamba with dance performance of Surveen Chawla & Chandni Sharma . This event is covered by spring news , Thailand and Zee TV India. here are the complete result which i found through credible news sources .

List of Winners:

Indian Princess 2015: Snehapriya Roi , Indian Princess People's Choice Award: Parul Sharma , First Runner up: Shaista Marianne , Second Runner up: Sukanya Bhattacharya , Miss Photogenic: Sukanya Bhattacharya , Best Body: Audrey D'silva , Miss Talented: Amanpreet Karnawal , Best Hair: Bhavna Makhija , Best Smile: Shaista Marianne , Miss Reality: Aparajita Verma .

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5]

Thanks DS Writer 2916 (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: DS Writer 2916 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

References

^ http://bollywoodhelpline.com/editor-39-s-pick/fashion-beauty/snehapriya-roi-crowned-indian-princess-2015/25909
^ http://thegreatpageantcommunity.com/2015/05/30/indian-princess-2015-full-result/
^ http://thegreatpageantcommunity.com/2015/05/23/indian-princess-2015-parul-sharma-wins-peoples-choice-award
^ https://www.youtube.com/user/springnewsonline
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKbHUbsSfIU

@DS Writer 2916: None of the source added by you above are not reliable to support WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete people who compete in but do not win beauty pageants are almost never notable for that, and nothing else about her rises to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not enough coverage to pass GNG and at best is a BLP1E. This also seems to be some kind of conflict of interest editing. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parul Sharma (model) as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:PROMO article on an unremarkable subject; does not meet BIO and GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as although informed the article may be, none of it actually amounts to clearly stating how and why she is independently notable for a convincing article along with the needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G11) by Seraphimblade. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gurpreet Kaur Chadha[edit]

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

No apparent significant coverage in reliable sources. Only trivial coverage seems to be available such as gossip with passing mentions and photos with passing mentions.

This topic fails WP:BIO and the lack of quality sourcing means this fails GNG and WP:BLP. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable low level politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A substantially promotional article, which is not surprising as it is largely copied from the subject's own website. The sources are poor and my searches are not finding better. Neither her public activity nor the coverage indicates encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are not reliable sources - her own website and a bunch of SPS. There is nothing available about the subject in the major Indian newspapers. The page is also extremely promotional. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Beside notability concerns, the whole piece not only reads promotional but there are also some copyvio issues. I just G11 and G12 it. This !vote remains here in case speedy is declined. Anup [Talk] 22:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There seemed to be some feeling that the article would pass muster if better sourcing could be found, so if requested I will userfy the article to allow for improvement. MelanieN (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red Fez[edit]

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

Delete. Article about an online literary magazine, with no strong claim of notability per WP:NMAG and no strong reliable source coverage to claim WP:GNG in lieu. Of the eight sources being cited here, four of them entirely fail to be coverage of the magazine at all, but are being cited solely to support the existence of contributors to it (e.g. "film critic Chris Lambert" is sourced to a primary source directory of his film criticism in another publication, rather than a news article talking about his contributions to this publication; "poet Michael Grover" is sourced to a user-generated site which nominally verifies that Michael Grover exists as a poet but completely fails to support his notability as a poet; etc.) Of the four surviving sources, two are the magazine's own primary source content about itself, and one of the other two is a directory entry in a database that allows literary magazines to add themselves. Which leaves just one piece of actual media coverage to even begin building a GNG claim on, and even it isn't about Red Fez but just glancingly mentions its existence in the process of being about a minor local literary festival. Wikipedia is not a free PR directory where everything that exists is automatically entitled to an article just because it exists -- RS coverage, supporting a notability claim that would satisfy NMAG, must be present for an article to become earned, but nothing here fulfills that requirement at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Thank you for your thorough review of this entry. I appreciate any suggestions for improvement and additions to this stub to help bolster its quality and breadth. Any additions you or other editors may have would be welcome.

In regards to the notability of this entry, if you look at Wikipedia’s list of literary magazines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_literary_magazines) you’ll find that a large number of entries there would fail your same criteria, some, like Word Riot, 32 Poems and Brick Magazine, are very notable and respected magazines within the literary and writing community. Literary journals are a different breed of periodical, and are notable in ways that aren’t captured by Wikipedia’s current guidelines. I based this entry, as best I could, on the other entries on that list that seemed acceptable.

Generally, literary journals are notable for the following: - How long they have been around - Who and how many authors they have published - Who has edited them and - How many people read them.

Items one, two and three are addressed by this entry. Item four is not a very interesting stat for readers, but could be dug up, though I feel I would be including it to satisfy notability requirements rather than to meet reader interest, as would listing some of the more notable editors who have retired from the magazine. The most important aspect of a literary journal is its contents, and not the journal itself, which may lead to a fairly plain Wikipedia entry, but does not make the journal any less notable or worthy.

Regarding the NMAG and GNG guidelines, unlike scientific or scholarly periodicals listed in the NMAG (which Wikipedia has made special guideline exceptions for to help important scientific journals that have only a handful of readers around the reliable source and notability guidelines) literary journals are not ‘referenced’ or quoted by other journals. That is just not a practice that happens. Arguably, literary journals are read by many more people, and also have high a very prominence within a very select community of publishers and writers. If attention is received due to a journals efforts, it is by the author or work published in that journal. Because many literary journals are non-profit organizations, they also don’t have institutional notability support from academic institutions, which is also accepted in the NMAG.

I welcome any ideas or suggestions for how this can be fixed in this entry. If this entry is deserving of deletion, I think a good number of other (I would argue valid) journals on the List of Literary Magazines should probably also be flagged. Wintersbeard (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, hi Wintersbeard, welcome to wikipedia, i hope that this experience doesn't put you off continuing to contribute, as this is your first article it might have been appropriate to submit it via Articles for creation, there you can receive great feedback and help (the same goes for the Teahouse where there are even editors who are willing to be mentors!), anyway, bak to redfez, the article presently describes what it does with some nice references backing up the statements, but nothing that really explains why it is notable and significant ie. what brings it above the 100s of literary journals that are out there in non-wikiland, has it received any well known/significant awards?, is it well cited amongst literary circles?, has it launched a number of significant/notable authors ie. first publication of their works (although this may bring rise to WP:NOTINHERITED editors may be more sympathetic; and a couple of final points - you say that there are other similar articles that might also be flagged for deletion please have a read of WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, and as an example of a nice little literary mag article from the list you mentioned above is Andromeda Spaceways Inflight Magazine (i promise it was a random pick:)), from that little town south of Sydney ("hang on coola, thats the capital of australia!", "i know, its just that a lot of people across the pond in the US only know of bondi and the bridge, oh, and the fireworks.") Coolabahapple (talk) 06:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is plainly a worthy topic and one could wish it were notable, but this would have to be established via reliable sources, which are not forthcoming. Wintersbeard's suggestions for a more rational policy for Notability of magazines would be welcome on that policy's talk page, though I fear they would run into the usual procedural glue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Articles in progress that are actively being worked on should not be de facto noted for deletion by parties with no vested interest in the subject, particularly if the subject is in an underrepresented area. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 15:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Won't cut much ice here, I'm afraid. If you know of reliable sources, say so, and let's list the key ones here. Since there don't seem to be any - and we have looked quite hard - the topic is not yet notable. Maybe in a few years' time that will have changed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ujjivan Financial Services[edit]

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

Explosively overspecific information of which only the company would know of course and therefore advertise about themselves, the links are themselves simply PR, republished PR, interviewed and company-supplied information, trivialness about company plans, accomplishments and services, none of which is surprising considering Indian news media is largely notorious for having "pay-for" news so there can certainly be no guarantees of non-PR involvements here, and my own searches are then actually finding exactly this, including at local news media, which explains everything that needs to be said. This is clearly a company persistently intent with keeping this advertisement considering there have been several accounts heavily involved with this account as it is. As it is, the first AfD was by far ridiculous in that it was before, in a time when advertising was taken leniently and perhaps not always so seriously as it is now. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First AfD discussion is here: [17]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only coverage is announcements in the press, PR pieces, company sourced interviews - there is no journalism going on with this coverage. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO. This company has failed to demonstrate any notability via coverage in independent sources or significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and fails GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam; strictly promotional. Even if the subject were notable (which is unlikely per available sources), it would need to be completely rewritten. So WP:TNT applies anyway. So delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chastity (wrestling)[edit]

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

Not notable. There are only a couple of sources out there that can be considered reliable, both are in the article and one of them is just a brief passing mention. There's some stuff about her on chat forums, which aren't acceptable sources. Basically, she was briefly a valet in ECW and WCW and had previously appeared in a single porn film. She had a couple "catflghts" in ECW, but never held any titles, never had any notable matches, never managed anyone to any titles or was much of anything in wrestling except arm candy and a stage prop. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actress and entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Williams (basketball)[edit]

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

Fails NHOOPS: never drafted, played one(?) game in the NBA Summer League, and has only played on D-League teams since then. If the Summer League counts towards "played in a professional league" then I will retract this nomination. Additionally, the references given are almost entirely stats pages, with very little in the way of substantial coverage. Primefac (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fox Sports and Twin Cities are pretty substantial. Not all the sources are stats. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say all of the sources were stats. The issue is that Fox is a one-sentence mention and Twin Cities is a blog. Primefac (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heres two more sources from the St. Paul Pioneer Press: 1 and 2. He's notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a local newspaper reporting on their local college team. They're reliable, sure, but I have often seen it (successfully) argued that "only local coverage" does not demonstrate notability. Primefac (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Fox Sports and Twin Cities coverage just pushes him through NHOOPS

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now & Forever: The Video Hits[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. The album did not chart and it was not discussed in multiple secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable coverage found. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss TQI República Dominicana 2007[edit]

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The parent Wiki article, Miss Tourism Queen International was already deleted. Richie Campbell (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the OUTCOME of the parent article's AFD. Utterly unconvincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss TQI República Dominicana 2008[edit]

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The parent Wiki article, Miss Tourism Queen International was already deleted. Richie Campbell (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the OUTCOME of the parent article's AFD. Utterly unconvincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Turismo Dominicana 2008[edit]

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The parent Wiki article, Miss Tourism Queen International was already deleted. Richie Campbell (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES; these pages are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Turismo Dominicana 2009[edit]

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The parent Wiki article, Miss Tourism Queen International was already deleted. Richie Campbell (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES; these pages are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Steele Band[edit]

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

Advertorially toned and almost entirely primary sourced article about a band, whose most substantive claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC is reaching #79 on a chart that doesn't satisfy WP:CHARTS (the magazine's Wikipedia article describes its chart as "focused on exposing new music played on secondary market radio stations", which means charting on it isn't noteworthy.) A band with no claim to passing NMUSIC #2-12 could still get an article if it could be sourced well enough to satisfy NMUSIC #1 (which is essentially "has enough media coverage to satisfy GNG"), but with the sourcing here being virtually all primary that hasn't happened. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know all the fancy wiki linking, but this is absurd. This is a real band, real people, and the bio isn't advetorially toned, it's just a plain description. Making the charts is a big deal, and per wiki's policy on WP:CHARTS there are countless band pages on wiki that have no charting or sources to prove charting. Did (talk) bother looking at the sources, which are all well established industry websites which show coverage. Additional media coverage will be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdpro (talk • contribs) 13:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the article was advertorially toned; thank you for toning it down, but what it is now is not what it was at the time I wrote my nomination statement. Secondly, "real band, real people" is not, in and of itself, a reason why a band gets a Wikipedia article — we are not a free PR platform where everybody who exists at all is entitled to have an article just because they exist, but an encyclopedia where people qualify for an article if they satisfy certain standards of notability and sourceability. Thirdly, making "the charts" is not a big deal if the chart they made isn't one that qualifies as a notable chart per WP:CHARTS. (Frex, a band qualifies as notable because charting if they charted in Billboard; they do not qualify as notable because charting if the only charting claim they can make is on iTunes.) And fourthly, people do not get articles based on "well established industry sites" where the content is PR-oriented — they get articles based on reliable source coverage in real media, which exactly zero of the sources here are. Even "The Magazine of Country Music" source is actually a press release issued by the band to publicize itself, making it a self-published source. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please Do not delete this page. We are getting the CMT and GAC sources that his music has run on for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdpro (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added 2 nationally recognized sources to the article that show national play. This should satisfy #11 and #12 of WP:NMUSIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdpro (talk • contribs) 17:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only new sources present in the article since the last time I looked at it are both to a small local newspaper in Erie, Pennsylvania, and neither one says anything about radio airplay on a national radio network whatsoever. Those would be acceptable sources if the rest of the sourcing around them were better than it is, but the Erie Times-News is not widely distributed enough to carry WP:GNG all by itself if it's the best you can do for sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the band appears to exist, but does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria at the moment. There are not enough reliable independent sources writing in significant depth about the band to establish notability. Google searches turn up promotional and/or self-published material. The point where reliable independent sources write articles on the band (not reprinting press releases) will be the time the band is ready for a Wikipedia article. Article currently attracts an average of three views a day, and that includes those involved in writing it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DC Brawlers[edit]

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

Non-notable sports team filled with primary sources and blogs as references that do not meet WP:GNG. Some sources are likely WP:ROUTINE. League is notable enough but teams do not show that they meet GNG independent from the league for the time being (WP:TOOSOON). Yosemiter (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore Anthem[edit]

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

Non-notable sports team filled with primary sources and blogs as references that do not meet WP:GNG. Some sources are likely WP:ROUTINE. League is notable enough but teams do not show that they meet GNG independent from the league for the time being (WP:TOOSOON). Yosemiter (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Rise (GRID)[edit]

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

Non-notable sports team filled with primary sources and blogs as references that do not meet WP:GNG. Some sources are likely WP:ROUTINE. League is notable enough but teams do not show that they meet GNG independent from the league for the time being (WP:TOOSOON). Yosemiter (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Cracroft Ash[edit]

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

No reliable sources found for this biographical article. The article on his son, Michael Edward Ash, has sources added by Arxiloxos and was deprodded, but the father should be considered separately as notability is not inherited. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment I see contemporary coverage of him calling him a "distinguished civil engineer", but I suspect we'll need someone who knows the paper sources for this to stand - David Gerard (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm literally finding nothing but mere mentions and that's not surprising, current article conveys nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've been able to find very little on line that's about Wilfred individually, but the company he co-founded, Gilbert-Ash, appears to be probably notable based on the extensive coverage of its activities in sources like the Belfast Telegraph and others visible in a HighBeam search. The content of this article would be relevant and usable in an article about the company (assuming it can be properly sourced). --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 13:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nutkani[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't establish that it's WP:NOTABLE. 1st AfD closed only because of lack of response - hopefully we can resolve this issue now. Boleyn (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- appears to be a very minor tribe; I found this passing mention (1 sentence) in Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province by Horace Arthur Rose, Sir Denzil Ibbetson. One word mention: Re-Thinking Punjab: The Construction of Siraiki Identity by Hussain Ahmad Khan. Not enough for encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As The Story Grows[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly not independently notable. Just a bullet list of "guests". W Nowicki (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sesame Street (season 33)[edit]

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

I looked hard for published sources discussing this season but found nothing. This article appears to be fan-based trivia and original research rather than a summary of reliable sources. There are no other Sesame Street season articles on Wikipedia, and this one isn't any different. It doesn't rise to the level of notability. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, albeit reluctantly. Unlike the vast number of other long-running shows, there are no episode or season lists for Sesame Street (List of Sesame Street episodes redirects to the main article). I'm aware that at least one of the primary editors in this field strongly objects to the idea of episode lists, and I do agree that sourcing would be challenging (but, on the other hand, the episode names and production ID numbers are trivially easy to source), but that's not an obstacle to inclusion. My personal opinions on the matter aside, this article is a stubby, unsourced little thing about a random season, which is not the way to go about changing the status quo. We're better off with nothing than with just this; anyone looking to develop a sourced season/episode structure here should probably develop it initially outside of mainspace. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more opinions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nature of seseme street does not really lend itself to or justify articles on individual seasons.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Love Triangle (film)[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks full reviews or other coverage. Prod removed with the claim "has reviews" with no indication where these reviews might be. The article has none, IMDB has no critic reviews linked, rotten tomatoes has a single capsule review. Not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found one lone review from the Chicago Reader, but this by itself is not enough to justify a keep. The only other sources were two extremely brief, trivial mentions in the same newspaper. This doesn't show a depth of coverage. That it's apparently tied to an attempt to promote Kevin L. Walker on Wikipedia doesn't help much either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a bit more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unremarkable film and a WP:PROMO page. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Season of mischief[edit]

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

Initially tagged for speedy deletion, and contested. However no substantive change since then. This article is about a publicity campaign for a particular beer by a small brewing company. It has been run during halloween for the last few years but has no significant coverage. The beer itself doesn't have a standalone article so surely a promotional campaign FOR the beer doesn't deserve a standalone article. It perhaps deserves a mention in Wychwood Brewery#Hobgoblin and IF that section becomes large then COULD be broken out to a standalone article eventually, if reliable sources can be found. Witty lama 08:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As suggested in the nomination, the contributor of this article should be encouraged to incorporate maybe a couple of referenced sentences about this advertising campaign into the existing Wychwood Brewery article. But I am seeing no indication that the campaign is notable in its own right. AllyD (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Wychwood Brewery is notable but this promotion isn't. I don't see redirecting as necessary. Blythwood (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above, no reason this particular ad campaign needs its own article. Anything notable about it can be incorporated into the Wynchwood Brewery page. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as poorly written spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Neutrality^talk 21:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G Money[edit]

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

does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelyricalmaster (talk • contribs) 23:49, October 6, 2016 (UTC)‎

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable disc jockey.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tin kadeema[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide for games. Article has no references to demonstrate notability or even to provide verification. ubiquity (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable game. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm closing this procedurally as the content has already been merged to Bruma, Gauteng. It seems there was a 2 year merge proposal on this article with no objections. As it has already been merged, this discussion is moot. I'm closing this early per IAR. (non-admin closure) Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruma Lake Flea Market, Gauteng[edit]

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

Delete: Non notable market. Article was earlier created (and deleted) under the name Bruma Flea Market and user created the page again under a different name. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Doesn't even nearly fit the criteria of being a shopping centre.Ajf773 (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has already been merged into to Bruma, Gauteng ([18]). clpo13_(talk) 07:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 13:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New South Wales Hillclimb Championship[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. Not a national Championship. Zero hits in gnews and gbooks which I find unusual as it's a long standing recurring event that you would think get some coverage in Australian press but none LibStar (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - barely notable even in the realm of Australian motorsport. Cases like this are a common thread across the Australian Motorsport project...people seem to think that lower-level Australian motorsport is much more notable than in reality. – Ky ta bu 03:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 National Center for Atmospheric_Research#Tools and technologies. And merge as desired from history. Sandstein 10:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NCAR Command Language[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The fact that a programming language is used does not necessarily make it notable. ubiquity (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think NCL is a quite relevant language to atmospheric scientists, and it is actively developed. I noticed that it is installed on the main server of my lab. (I'm an ocean modeller; I don't use NCL.) Hulten (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surely no scientist but the Gbooks results seem quite robust. Also rather than deletion a redirect and merge to National_Center_for_Atmospheric_Research#Tools_and_technologies might also be an option? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds like a good idea. Hulten (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support redirect/merge. ubiquity (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Wienbarg III[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. None of the references actually establish subject's notability. ubiquity (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The subject has written articles and reported on many major topics for a widely disseminated media source and also wrote and produced a film for a notable historic cultural instution. He is also noted for his involvement with the famed Hollywood sign and credits as an actor. Brainplanner (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this on Wikipedia. He transformed the Hollywood sign into art works to be sold. By branding the sign for clothing he created a unique merchandising technique not used heretofore. What he did was notable as avant guard behavior that has come to be regarded as mainstream. Deleting this reference to George Wienbarg would make Wikipedia lless encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGuy (talk • contribs) 01:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not only are the 2 AfDs above simply stating he has authored contents and works, but they are not actually substantiating themselves with how, where and when they can actually improve this, how Wikipedia needs it, not what they want it to be like. There's nothing to suggest actual substance here and the obvious attempts at making the article seem larger than it actually is, is also noticeable. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Subject is substantially referenced in at least two RSs from MSM. Played a role in the history of the Hollywood sign, and iconic landmark. Appeared in several films. The article could be pared down a bit and references cleaned up.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a journalist does not inherit notability from his subject, unless he becomes the news or gains an award because of it. Typos indicate this might be a vanity page. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There does not any longer seem to be a preponderance of typos.Brainplanner (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Case for notability seems to have been provenMasterknighted (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The source has been covered well through reliable sources and therefore makes it notable. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 23:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' - Well rounded entryJmpknoops (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 10:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C-drik Fermont[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:ANYBIO, and my searches find no in-depth, independent coverage in reliable sources. The article is largely sourced to unreliable music fanzines without any reputation for accuracy, and coverage in reliable ones (e.g. Libération magazine) is always trivial, limited to no more than a sentence or two. —^0xF₈E₈ (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fastvideo. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fastvideo SDK[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. I find no coverage in unaffiliated sources meeting the general notability guidelines or any indication that this product meets the software notability guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I shared my thoughts on this matter on the talk page of this article. Please review. DmitryPivovarov (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on the talk page, Fastvideo SDK is included into Nvidia's catalog of the selected GPU applications, also the corresponding results and benchmarks are published on Nvidia.com by Nvidia itself. Do you imply Nvidia is somehow affiliated with Fastvideo? I would say that is pretty much unrealistic. Implying that the library that is mentioned by Nvidia in its own catalog of GPU libraries is not notable is unrealistic too in a sense. I mean if the inventor of the technology mentioned the library that uses the technology - this is notable. And not just mentioned - Nvidia's GPU-accelerated applications catalog is a de facto golden standard in this industry. You won't see any apps or libraries there Nvidia do not recommend. They all (including Fastvideo SDK) are approved and tested by Nvidia. The catalog recommends apps, not just mentions them. Therefore, I do not see how Fastvideo SDK does not meet general notability guidelines or is affiliated. I'm looking forward to any comments on this. Thanks. DmitryPivovarov (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A single line listing, among hundreds, in a commercial manufacturer's catalog, stating no more than a perfunctory "JPEG, JPEG2000, Raw Bayer codecs / Fast JPEG, JPEG2000, Raw Bayer encoding and decoding on CUDA / Has multi-GPU support" is not substantial coverage, let alone substantial coverage in multiple sources. Also, you'll find nothing in the notability guidelines that acknowledges notability on account of having been recommended by Nvidia—which, by the way, says nothing in this catalog about inclusion being equivalent to recommendation. As far as I can tell, all it's saying is that here are all the products that exist that are taking advantage of Nvidia's GPU technology. It's an Nvidia marketing vehicle and is, therefore, not coverage written at arm's length. Largoplazo (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Nvidia is a commercial manufacturer. But that does not make it less authoritative. What kind of more authoritative coverage do you mean then? More authoritative than Nvidia who - I repeat - invented the entire GPU stuff? Could you say who could that be?

Also, the catalog does NOT list "all the products that exist". This is a selective list. And there is no "Submit your own app" button there. It would be a pretty dumb marketing to just include every single GPU app on Earth to the list, don't you think? Anyway, the question is not about if the inclusion in the catalog is notable and substantial. It is, just because there are NO other catalogs nor other conferences in this industry. The question is, do you take Nvidia as a reputable and independent source or not. If yes, one source is enough. If no, well... I don't know what to say then. Nvidia is #1 expert in GPU computations. Best technologies, best specialists, best hardware. And yet it is still not reputable in the GPU field? That's nonsense.

You see, I understand and respect your formalism and adherence to the letter of the law. But the thing is, there are no other serious and reputable sources other than Nvidia in the GPU computation field. Not to mention more reputable ones. There are no multiple sources. And even if there were, they would simply blindly reprint what Nvidia says. DmitryPivovarov (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are essentially arguing that, for this one product, we should override the long chain of consensuses that have gone into the creation of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and make up a new rule just for it. I think you're also continuing to conflate the quality of a product with its notability. Inclusion has nothing to do with the quality of a product. A product can be absolutely horrendous (see Microsoft Bob, for example) and still be notable.

I'm sorry, but Nvidia doesn't have the magical ability to confer notability, as Wikipedia defines it, all by itself, through a bare mention rather than substantial coverage, on each of the hundreds of products that appear in a catalog that it publishes just because it published them there, in complete disregard of Wikipedia's guidelines. If you meant to imply, above, that it's ridiculous to think that any reliable source (PC World? Game Informer? Esquire? The New York Times?) might have substantial coverage of it, then you're basically arguing that it isn't notable, and that even its inclusion in the catalog wasn't sufficient to draw anyone's attention. Largoplazo (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should not override Wikipedia rules, of course. You should follow them. But from my point of view, the rules are for people, not people for the rules. And the magazines you listed have nothing to do with GPU computation and simply cannot say anything in this field without citing Nvidia. Therefore, their opinion on this topic is non-reputable even though they may provide wider coverage. Strange, but true. Anyway, thanks for considering and for your answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DmitryPivovarov (talk • contribs) 19:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Significant coverage in reliable independent sources does not exist. Simply being associated with a notable company NVIDIA does not guarantee notability per WP:INHERITORG. There is nothing available which shows that this SDK is widely used. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; my original vote was to redirect to to Fastvideo where the subject was already mentioned. But my suggested target is at AfD itself so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fastvideo as a plausible search term. Fastvideo isn't deleted yet. --Mark viking (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nobody wants to keep this, it seems. Sandstein 10:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva murugan temple, concord[edit]

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

The New York Times obituary for Sivaya Subramuniyaswami states "In 1957, he began teaching in San Francisco, where he founded what the paramacharya said was the nation's first Hindu temple."
This article asserts that "It is known as the first traditional Hindu temple established in the USA".
If the subject of this article is in fact any or all of:

a temple established by Sivaya Subramuniyaswami
the first traditional Hindu temple established in the USA
the the USA's first Hindu temple, traditional or not

then I would expect that there would be significant coverage in reliable sources of a place of worship called "Shiva Murugan temple", whether historically located in San Francisco or relocated to Concord. I have done due diligence, and have not found any evidence that this article matches any of those assertions.
As always, please do prove me wrong about this. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hindu Temple Society of North America says the one in Flushing, Queens, "was the very first of the traditional Hindu temples in the USA", and it has a reference and a side note. Page 720 of The Encyclopedia of New York State, while not explicitly confirming this, does seem to imply the claim: "Following the Immigration Act of 1965, Indian professionals and their families began settling in Flushing ... Humble beginnings in homes, apartments, basements ... and converted buildings led to the first traditional Hindu temples in the West." Clarityfiend (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the above concerns could easily be allayed by "Shiva murugan temple is one of the first hindu temples in america ...", but is it notable ... Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All Hindu Temples has a detailed account (not a mirror of WP) of the temple, with photographs. It certainly looks real; it may be that the temple itself submitted the text, but the photos indicate a real place. Temple Purohit has a briefer account and a map. Again, it isn't clear where the data came from but the temple seems real enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. It's not a matter of whether it exists. There are lots of temples/churches/mosques/shrines. It's whether it is notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that everyone who's contributed here is aware of that, which is why the discussion has been so cautious. However, if this is the first trad. Hindu temple in the West then it's certainly notable. We have established that it is a Hindu temple in the West, so we're part way there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first Hindu temple in America was however the San Francisco Vedanta Society's in 1906, following Vivekananda's 1893 visit, according to Timothy Miller's America's Alternative Religions. This is confirmed by the PBS Timeline: Faith in America. The Shiva Murugan temple was thus not the first in San Francisco; it could still have been the first traditional one, whatever that means, and it could have been established by Sivaya Subramuniyaswami. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Well, since nobody seems too enthusiastic about this, I note that the claim to be the first traditional temple in the USA appears to be untrue, and I have removed it. There appears, therefore, to be nothing to prevent this article's deletion, and no sign of multiple, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. No doubt, when the temple has held some notable events an article could be written about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant coverage found. To disclose, I previously prod'd the article. James (^talk/_contribs) 18:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Birring[edit]

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

The page belongs to Category:Jat clans, or one of its subcategories. All the pages of these categories lack the very basic notability guidelines. Failure WP:GNG. Must discussed and deleted per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article fails all aspects of notability, specifically GNG (as per Krishna Chaitanya Velaga above), and presents a large amount (actually everything) of original research, giving unsupported variations in spelling (nine to be exact), as well as an unsupported history. Otr500 (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bains clan[edit]

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

The page belongs to Category:Jat clans, or one of its subcategories. All the pages of these categories lack the very basic notability guidelines. Failure WP:GNG. Must discussed and deleted per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I searched for references under the title (See Talk:Bains clan, and could not find specific sources to provide notability other than "Bains" is a surname. Otr500 (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Peculiar[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSBIO, no significant/reliable media coverage on the artist. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found no coverage in reliable sources for what seems a pretty obscure musician. --Michig (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure what you mean with "obscure musician", but personal ideas aside the references and sources mentioned in the page are pretty reliable. --Fabpec (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is the band's own website, i.e. not independent of the subject, the others are not, as far as I am aware, recognised reliable sources. The Pure M website states "Pure M is a voluntary run website by a collection of writers and each contributor is building an online portfolio for their future media careers.", which sounds like one of the hundreds of amateur/fan-written webzine sites that exist on the internet, and likely falls short of WP:RS. --Michig (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are not indicative of significant coverage. Seems like a promotional page created by an SPA. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a WP:PROMO page and part of a walled garden created by Special:Contributions/Fabpec. The "garden" also includes:

This may be just work by a devoted fan, but four articles seems excessive. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Informal Session, Pt. 1[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, no significant media coverage. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The artist isn't notable, and neither is this EP. No coverage found. --Michig (talk) 06:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are references and sources talking about the artist, all mentioned in the page. --Fabpec (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where? It's completely unreferenced. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the artist's page. --Fabpec (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an AfD discussion for Informal Session, Pt. 1, not Mister Peculiar. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:PROMO page and part of a walled garden created by Special:Contributions/Fabpec. Wikipedia does not need four articles on these closely related topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Should Follow Steve's Thought[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, no significant media coverage —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found. At all. --Michig (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Already been discussed and agreed to keep the page. This is here to make the article about Mister Peculiar more complete. --Fabpec (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where has it been discussed and "agreed"? Richard3120 (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:PROMO page and part of a walled garden created by Special:Contributions/Fabpec. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dongfeng Motor#Overseas activities. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Feng Motor Philippines[edit]

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

Not even worth merging--its just a distributor for the manufacturer. We don't list every dealership or franchise in the article for the main company. They have a website for that. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found some coverage in one piece from the Manila Bulletin (2013) – via HighBeam (subscription required) but even that is predominantly about the manufacturer rather than its local distributor. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dongfeng Motor § Overseas activities as a valid search term, and the redirect target already has content about this branch of the company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Nordic Nightfury 09:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per North America¹⁰⁰⁰. Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 13:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strugglers: The Reality Behind[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the WP:NOTFILM criteria at all. No reliable sources, no significant coverage. A few YouTube clips and one (minimal) listing on "Filmipop". IMDb hasn't heard of it either. Yintan 20:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is cited with national news paper references. It is extremely unfortunate about this editor's agenda driven vandalism. Riisen (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Riisen:You've already been given a level4 warning for personal attacks. Stop it now. Yintan 07:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attacking you, I have sent you national references, answer me about that, you are not answering me if i raise a valid point, you actually dont want to come to consensus about Kamalika Chanda article is notable. Riisen (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Riisen: Accusing me of "racial abuse", "harassment" and "chinese intolerance" is an attack. And I've already tried to explain the difference between 'notability' and 'existence' to you. Don't play dumb. Besides, if you've got a problem with my editing or my attitude, feel free to take it to WP:ANI. This is not the place for it. Yintan 09:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NF and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 11:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong deleteIs absolutely non-notable. Is missing even from IMDB. Extreme lack of independent coverage and sources. Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 17:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of Pittsburgh Intelligent Systems Program[edit]

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

We usually do not have articles about single educational programs, and there is a good reason for this: These programs, barring exceptional cases, never satisfy WP:GNG. I do not see how this one would be an exception. It is a good university but not top five, all references are to the info or the university website, and I the information is basically handbook info, nothing non-trivial. Part of it can be possibly merged into the article about the university, but I do not see much of a perspective for a standalone article. Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We almost never keep such articles, since academic programs are quite numerous. If really necessary, please redirect or merge into Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since these programs come and go so often, they rarely meet notability levels needed for a kept article. W Nowicki (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No "keep" opinions of any substance. Sandstein 13:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bolurfrushan family[edit]

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

Vanity bio, fails WP:GNG by absence of independent reliable sources. Brianhe (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very Notable family, founder of bank Saderat. Better sources needed may be. Consequently Oppose its deletion. 47.17.18.64 (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the bank is notable and maybe even its founder, but the entire family certainly does not enjoy inherited notability. - Brianhe (talk) 05:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you point but may be it's a bit like the Rothschild dynasty. They have an interesting coat of arms which was deleted by someone linked to "Rockefeller" in the edit history... 47.17.27.96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment more refs are needed and a founder of a bank himself might be notable but not the familyWorldlinguistic (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldlinguistic: that sounds like a !vote to delete it, then? - Brianhe (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL We do not keep family history articles, unless the family is unambigously notable. This seems to me more like a vanity page about the family, possibly to hitch a ride on the reputation of Wikipedia as generally neutral source. I do not see enough third party sources that the family is notable and references to the company/individual members do not count. (The family doesn't inherit notability from the company). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davina Stephens[edit]

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

Of the 2 online references (out of 3 in total), one is subject's own website, other is a deadlink. Cannot find anything independent showing significant coverage. There's a profile on Saatchi Art (https://www.saatchiart.com/DavinaStephens) which I think anyone can create to sell their own art and a few local (Bali) sites e.g. balidiscover.com and indonesianexpat.biz - nothing to signify notability to pass WP:Artist or WP:GNG. Rayman60 (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not appear to meet WP:NARTIST. Most available sourcing is WP:ABOUTSELF. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hillfields, Bristol. The one "keep" makes no policy-based argument. Sandstein 11:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Park, Bristol[edit]

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

Chester Park is not a recognised area of Bristol, it has no significance and does not warrant such a lengthy page. Trunky (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How long are pages limited to? How many words per inhabitant are geographical areas restricted to, lest WP run out of server space?

This is not a major area of Bristol. It is a subdivision smaller than an electoral ward. Yet it is a real place, a long-established and well-defined place. There are at least two schools here calling themselves "Chester Park". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hillfields, Bristol, the ward that it's in. The few verifiable scraps could be selective paste merged if anyone wishes. I can find no significant coverage of this small 19th century housing development in online sources; Google Maps shows the neighbourhood formed by "Chester Park Road, Berkeley Road, Argyle Road and Charlton Road" is a total of 4 or 5 small blocks of houses, which I do not believe is likely by itself to have ever been the subject significant coverage in any WP:reliable sources, online or offline. (Note to any further contributors to this AfD: Confusingly, Chester Park (as opposed to Chester Park Road) is a street over a mile away and so clearly not part of the neighbourhood as described in the article). Qwfp (talk) 09:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although it has been pointed out that this neologism has been covered by the media, consensus here is that it doesn't quite meet the notability threshold. This does not rule out a possible mention in a topically related article. Sandstein 10:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's razor[edit]

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

This is a manor theme, and not worth a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Scalzi and Marshall were classmates; they're the only two using this term, and do so in their own self-published blogs. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mikeblas. This is not even a well-known meme within the context of the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, much less one that warrants encyclopedic coverage. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the comments above. Safiel (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, protect from creation, close thread, and warn the page creator. Completely fails WP:GNG. Jdcomix (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That people publish overly insulting and stupid things on their blogs is one thing, until this regularly appears in things that are reliable sources, we should not even mention it in other articles, let alone have an article on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure what a manor theme is, but Trump's razor appears in many publications, some mainstream publications, some smaller, over many months. Nereocystis (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Washington Post article, by Daniel W. Drezner, professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University Why Donald Trump is going to Mexico
- James Fallow in The Atlantic, July, 2016 'A Fundamental Decency': The Difference Between Rob Ford and Donald Trump
- Wall Street Journal Opinion, September, 2016 Trump Goes to Mexico
- From Liberal Geek. Trump's Razor and the Sniffles
- Interview by Jacob Weisberg of Josh Marshall Trump's razor.
- Occam’s Razor repurposed to ‘Trump’s Razor’ and, additionally, “Boris’ Razor
Keep It's in the news and this is a good explanation. -- Elphion (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC) PS: he means "minor theme".[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Term has been in widespread use for a sustained period of time, as any simple websearch clearly indicates. As such, article passes N through WP:SUSTAINED The article even taught me what the term meant. That's a textbook example of what an encyclopedia does. X4n6 (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the mentions in news media noted above by Nereocystis (I have beefed up the article with citations to a few of these), the term has been used hundreds of times in discourse on Twitter. So quite a lot of people are talking about it. In other news—which, mind you, I don't expect to have much weight in a "Keep" decision—"Trump's Razor" mugs and T-shirts are now being peddled. Does a T-shirt confer notability? Beamjockey (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not possibly fail WP:GNG any harder. Thefoolofemmaus (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to something more appropriate. Clearly it's been mentioned by a few media sources so perhaps we can find an article into which it could be merged. This is Paul (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a brief flurry of campaign-related chatter does not make a neologism encyclopedic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Grant Sherry[edit]

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

William Grant Sherry is not notable according to the guidelines in WP:ARTIST. The fact that he was Bette Davis's husband does not not confer notability on him, see WP:INVALIDBIO. Some of the material in the article could be incorporated into Bette Davis. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per the so far uncontested claims of meeting GNG. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Deadly Sins (series)[edit]

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

There are no refs in the article except for a link to the website of the author, and I was not able to find references demonstrating notability. Ymblanter (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Trying this out, I find [19], [20], [21]. So, she seems to be getting reasonable, ongoing press. Jclemens (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like Simon & Schuster just reprinted these in a multivolume compilation. Gotta say, the false positives are pretty hard to filter out for a really common series title like that, but it looks like a case where the article fails to use coverage clearly available online. Failing that, merge to the author's web page, because these clearly exist and aren't just self-published. Jclemens (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, although the series doesn't appear to have been reviewed as a whole, there are numerous reviews available on individual titles, article lists 6 of them in the references section. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dantusliya[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This recently formed a part of a massive bulk-nomination AfD that was rightly closed for procedural reasons (40-ish articles is far too many to attempt to source etc in a week). I have now checked this one and there appears to be no useful coverage in reliable sources. We have no biographical articles for people bearing the name, so converting to a surname dab list is not an option. Sitush (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Certainly fails GNG per Sitush. I could find nothing in newspapers, books, or a scholar check. Otr500 (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could not find anything that would help write a reliably sourced encyclopedia article on this topic. Anup [Talk] 22:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable coverage present. Searches result to wiki sites that copy material from Wikipedia and google+, facebook profiles. And as mentioned by nom, if do not have any article for people with this name, there is no point making a disambig list. Pratyush (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Another clan article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Megha Akash[edit]

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

Actress who falls under too soon. with only 2 roles so far and neither have been released. Wgolf (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel reliable sources like these (and quite a few more that are available on Google) to be significant enough per BASIC: Deccan Chronicle, Times of India, Bangalore Mirror, Cinetrooth, another Deccan Chronicle. These sources have been added by me to the article now. Lourdes 14:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 02:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment-I was under the impression that they needed to have been in at least one film or tv show already to have a page-not where none of the films have been released. Wgolf (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be in case you're not referring to GNG or BIO (or BASIC)... It's not uncommon for an individual to fail NACTOR yet be qualified on GNG or BASIC. Lourdes 04:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Air Swell (band)[edit]

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

Japanese indie band, fails WP:MUSIC. Yintan 12:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep, not a great article, but two albums charting on the mainstream (Oricon) charts [22][23] - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In most cases, charting on a national chart (which satisfies criterion 2 in WP:BAND) is usually taken as a good indication of notability. They also seem to get good coverage in the rock/music press, including a major like Oricon: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], etc. I think this is sufficient to prove notability. Michitaro (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Gadsden[edit]

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

I still confirm my specific PROD here and I'll note searches at BBC, The Guardian and The Telegraph only found a few links at the latter two (the Guardian had a few mentions whereas the Telegraph only actually had one) but they were never anything else but still being trivial and also for local art events therefore there's still nothing for actual independent notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Guardian review here is more than a mention and counts as coverage in a reliable source detailing her severe medical condition and her major part in an art exhibition at the Southbank which can be consideref as a national exhibition rather than a local exhibition. The Guardian review indicates there could well be similar coverage in other national newspapers that are not available free online. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That one review is still thin regarding actual substance of what would needed as noted by my nomination above, it's also not conceivable to say there could be other news online when I have in fact myself (as noted above) searched at every single major British newspaper, and found nothing but mere mentions. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the source mentioned above plus coverage of her work in Qatari newspapers [31][32] plus (less compelling, but still reliable) coverage from the UK Parliament [33] and magazines [34][35].--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Big Brother (U.S. TV series)[edit]

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

This is original research. That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article isn't original research it has sources it just needs to be written in the WP:MOS the events noted here are notable and pertain to the topic. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 05:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's OR in that the vast majority of the sources report that "X happened", yet this article says X Is controversial when the source says nothing like that. Additionally this is a BLP landmine field. It's way out of line in some of the accusations and implications.That man from Nantucket (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems like it is based on WP:Original research. Mostly it is incidents, yes involving WP:Living persons, that someone decided were critical. Of course, both outstanding incidents and problems as well as comprehensive criticisms should have an expanded section in the main article.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you all are discussing this article then Controversy and criticism of Big Brother (UK) needs to be added to this discussion because it is the same thing. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 22:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that, but you are correct. Why don't we let this play out first? No sense in having two discussions over the same subject. I would say the same logic applies to all "criticism of X" articles, unless sources exist that devoted to the critiscm of X. Even then, the critiscm belongs in X.That man from Nantucket (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Every section is pretty much already discussed in separate articles pertaining to specified seasons without any additional information or reliable sources.--OfficerAPC (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with OfficerAPC, and Thoughtmonkey about this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Yourself Dizzy[edit]

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

No evidence that this song meets the notability guidelines. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A WP:BEFORE on songs often benefits from checking the chart sites. In this case, the song was UK national No. 2 on 23 February 1980, which is pretty unambiguous notability. (I always google on "songname" "charts" and "songname site:billboard.com" as a start.) I also note that this claim is in the intro of the article - David Gerard (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: horrible cheesy seaside cabaret disco record, I remember it well. But it was a very big hit in the UK and also made no. 2 in Ireland, no. 5 in Belgium, and no. 12 in the Netherlands, so plenty of chart action. Very likely interviews with the band in the music press of the time, despite their total lack of cool. Richard3120 (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sources for the single's chart positions and silver certification in the UK. Richard3120 (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets the requirements of WP:NSONG. Pichpich (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, withdrawal of nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spa of Topilo[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable site. Quis separabit? 00:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- nomination withdrawn by nom. Quis separabit? 02:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a town outside of Niš called Топило,[36] ] which roughly translates to "Topilo".[37] --Oakshade (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I expanded the article and added reliable sources about it. The spa is small but rather notable as a tourist area. Serbian Wikipedia has a rather extensive sr:Бања Топило. No such user (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, No such user's additions seem to bring the article in line with WP:GEOLAND. Antepenultimate (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, criterion A7, organization with no significance or importance. —C.Fred (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Humane Law Enforcement Movement[edit]

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

Not a notable organization. No information besides the organization website. no citations Minoshark1964 (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://bollywoodhelpline.com/editor-39-s-pick/fashion-beauty/snehapriya-roi-crowned-indian-princess-2015/25909

[2] ttp://thegreatpageantcommunity.com/2015/05/30/indian-princess-2015-full-result/

[3] ttp://thegreatpageantcommunity.com/2015/05/23/indian-princess-2015-parul-sharma-wins-peoples-choice-award

[4] ttps://www.youtube.com/user/springnewsonline

[5] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKbHUbsSfIU

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]