Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 7 October 9 October >

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. Deferring any salting to WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Cruz[edit]

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

The article does not meet BIO or PORNBIO; the award listed is not significant and well known. The article is sourced to interviews, award listings or self-cited to the subject's web site. No meaningful bio content provided; no significant RS coverage can be found.

The article was kept at an AfD in 2012; PORNBIO has been tightened since then, and I believe this article is worth revisiting. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable and no significant RS coverage, as noted. Kierzek (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The awards that do exist are part of a PR network and do not garner even the minimal attention that would be needed for them to be worth considering as grounds for inclusion of an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 9 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. A Traintalk 15:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keiran Lee[edit]

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

Fails ANYBIO and PORNBIO; UK Adult Film and Television Award has been deemed insufficient in meeting the SNG, while the other award is fan based. Sources are not there to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does this performer meet PORNBIO? The consensus in the current wave for AfD debates holds that a UKAFTA win doesn't satisfy the guideline. Neither does a fan award. Failing that requirement, we are left with a Playboy interview and porn trade press. The most charitable assessment is borderline. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • AVN Award – Favorite Male Performer - meets of PORNBIO, AVN Award this is most notable award of pornography; UK Adult Film and Television Award – Best Male Actor - there no clear consensus for meets/or nor meet PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     20:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all categories of AVN Award satisfy the "well-known" standard of PORNBIO. That's the working consensus of recent AfD debates. Winning niche award categories does not establish notability by itself. A claim that a fan award does is dubious. The judgement that supports a PORNBIO pass should be credible. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, all individual awards of AVN Award are notable and meets of the PORNBIO. There no any consensus for your theory. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     20:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your examples are discussions about delete few articles, again: discussions about delete some article. There are not official discussion and official consensus for rules, Wikipedia policy, guideline, essay, notability of Wikipedia. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     21:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG, Awards don't meet our requirements and there's no evidence of notability. –Davey2010Talk 14:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    fails GNG? See below. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     22:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:PORNBIO with award wins and passes WP:GNG with mainstream media coverage ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable pornographic actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - above troll-"vote" by User:Johnpacklambert break WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:UNENCYC, especially, WP:JNN.... and abuse copy/paste. This user always use the same text "Non-notable pornographic actress". Blind votes, again. By the way, Keiran Lee are men (actor), not woman (actress). Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     00:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe he passes the WP:GNG per Rebecca1990. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the above source are unconvincing, and largely consist of interview and opinions by the subject, rather than WP:SIGCOV. For example, the headlines are:
  • 4 Porn Stars Talk About How They Fell in Love
  • Talented or tainted: Can a porn star go mainstream? (Lee gets a passing mention among other adult entertainment personalities): "[Lee] said: "The good thing about the adult industry is it opens a lot of doors for going into mainstream. It's not as taboo as it used to be."
  • Condom law 'will be ignored' says British porn actor (opinions by the subject)
  • "...Lee, who is the only man in the world with a penis insured for one million dollars (according to his Twitter)..." (claims by the subject, followed by an interview)
  • Keiran Lee: he's Britain's top porn star but gets his kicks out of Derby County (another interview)
  • Who is the Simon Cowell of the porn industry? New Sex Factor show laid bare (promo article as expected at the launch of a new show, that ran in a tabloid)
I don't see how this amounts to meeting GNG as what I see is not "significant RS coverage" addressing the topic of Kieran Lee directly and detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
you have too high expectations, please stop your extreme delectionism deletionism. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 10:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's "delectionism", Does it mean someone who goes out of their way to deselect everything like these Checkboxes ?, –Davey2010Talk 11:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
deletionism / deletionist, it mean someone who cause damage in Wikipedia, who wants to destroys the work of other users. For example: article Keiran Lee show pornographic actor, In 2012, Brazzers placed a billboard advertisement with a photo of him on Sunset Boulevard.[7] He has hosted the reality-show The Sex Factor. No. of adult films: 1036! as a performer & 1 as a director. Keiran Lee won two awards: 2007 UK Adult Film and Television Award – Best Male Actor[11] and 2016 AVN Award – Favorite Male Performer + some nominations. There are non-pornographic sources, meets of WP:GNG. But, no - few users-extreme deletionists must remove this. This destructive action, extreme deletionism is cancer who eats Wikipedia. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 11:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind you've missed the joke entirely. –Davey2010Talk 12:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anyone with an inkling of knowledge about the deletionism enthusiast fanbase on Wikipedia knows that the criteria for porn-related articles for some reason need to be higher than those for sport-related articles, fashion-related articles and pretty much any other niche on Wikipedia. Why? Who knows. So I'm going to pretend that Keiran Lee is a male badminton player, in which case (per the sufficient amount of sources) he would be notable as per GNG. Pwolit iets (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about "high expectations" -- Wikipedia operates to an academic standard; it's an encyclopedia after all. It's not a WP:Indiscriminate collection of information. In addition, the RS requirement is more stringent for notability vs simply for content. Mr Lee clearly does not meet the required threshold of being a subject of WP:SIGCOV, as required by the notability guideline. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no way this satisfies GNG. Neither does it satisfy the lower expectations of PORNBIO. As for the rants about "Deletionism", did you ever realise that the runaway "Inclusionism" of yesteryears is responsible for what Wikipedia has become? A place for promotional article about non-notable topics? All of this reduces the long term credibility of the encyclopaedia turning us into just another internet site where anyone can add information and people use it as a medium for promotion. An encyclopaedia is supposed to be accurate and NPOV, which is why we require significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. (See WP:WHYN). That clearly isn't happening here. Wikipedia is the sum of all human knowledge, not the sum of all human garbage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable, nominated as best footballer in 2015, 2012 and 2011 and player of the year in 2014 as well as a nomination for Best striker in 2013...you don't need to win to be notable, just ask Ted Cruz...article needs work but the player is very notable...--Stemoc 17:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stemoc: This article is about an actor, not a footballer. I'm not sure what is meant by such piping as "nomination for [[XRCO Award|Best striker]] in 2013" --? In any case, nominations do not count under PORNBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 10 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 Northern Mariana Islands national football team. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Westphal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also fails WP:NSPORTS, hasn't played in a tier 1 international match as per [7]. Northern Mariana Islands are not FIFA-affiliated, therefore can't play tier 1 international matches. Simione001 (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:42, 9 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:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who never married[edit]

List of people who never married (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list will be infinite, and has similar problem to List of childless people. An IP address, likely belonging to the article creator objected to my PROD tag and hence I am opening an AfD discussion. Cahk (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor seems to be making an effort to reduce the scope of the list so that it will be maintainable. See lead section and talk page.--172.56.33.203 (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be easy to just cut the list off at some date of birth if it becomes unmaintainable several decades from now. Maybe we could wait and see if that really happens. Notable heterosexual people tend to be people of talent and ambition and such people tend to get married. Maybe the Millennials that those predictions are based upon do not fall into that category and thus there will be fewer of them that meet the project's notability criteria at that future time. Maybe those young Millennials say now that they will not get married but maybe they will later change their minds (e.g. George Clooney or others documented in the External links section of the article) and the predictions will turn out to be wrong. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Japanese Wikipedia. Consider my prediction of the process: most of the people who get on the list will get on it because they died.--208.54.64.203 (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too broad per WP:SALAT, which explains that "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value". -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To make things worse than people have pointed out above does someone like Eliza R. Snow who never married in a legal sense, but married according to religious rights, and fully proclaimed herself as the wife of Joseph Smith belong here or not? It will also group those like Evan Stephens who had a fiancee die on them, with those who never were even that close to marry. It also will include those who died before the age of 18 when they did not marry. Even the inclusion of those who died before age 30 without having married in many cases involves grouping unlike individuals. Come to think of it another questionable individual is John Gibson (soldier). His marriage to a close reliative of Chief Logan was clearly viewed as such by the Mingo, but does not appear to have existed as a legal marriage in the eyes of the colonial government. In fat, this is a harder to define set of people than those who died childless, although there are many males throughout history who it is disputed if they ever fathered a child or not, so that list had flaws as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And from the other side we have Molly Brant, a person who had 8 child, but was never technically married to their father, although our article says she was his "consort". In some historical slave societies, at least in the American south, slaves were refused the legal right to marry, but this does not mean that some were not functionally married. Then there are people like Calamity Jane who it is claimed was married to Wild Bill Hickock in a marriage properly witnessed by two ministers, but others dispute the event ever occured. So the inclusion criteria are fuzzy, and it is hard to establish that this is a way to group people, especially when many of the people who end up on the list will do so because they died before the average age of such a thing. Another issue is that we probably should not try and determine the marital status of all BLPs we have, although this might more be evidence that we have created articles on people who are not notable enough to justify having articles on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have read up on WP:SALAT and don't see that this list meets the guideline. The other problem with it, which is even more serious, is that there would be too many items that might be included or not, depending on how "married" is defined. That it's pointless information is perhaps not a very strong objection, because it might be seen as relevant to some people, but the fuzziness of the inclusion criteria can't be ignored. --bonadea contributions talk 20:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete undefinable and too broad. Do common-law marriages exclude an entry?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it could be moved to "List of people who never had a spouce" since that is the word used in the infoboxes. Note that the lead section of the article excludes people younger than the age of marriage. Some of the infooxes mention "pattners". I created and have used the imperfect redirect never married. See also criticism of marriage#Some people who never married.--~~`` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyree999 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See also List of reasons for never having a spouse.--208.54.32.211 (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a number of reasons: topic is far too broad, no indication of why such a list would be encyclopedic material (ie no source that I know of has covered this) and a topic which by its very nature is going to result in a mostly unverifiable article. Heck, I almost closed this Speedy delete under A11, but I felt it might be useful to establish precedent for this type of thing, so that similar articles can be quickly dealt with. Vanamonde (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I cannot think what purpose this page serves. --ChiveFungi (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nobody needs a list that links Joan of Arc to Harper Lee, or Susan B. Anthony to Al Pacino, solely on the basis of their never having married someone else — and even if we did constrain it to dead people exclusively, it still wouldn't be useful or valuable to try to maintain. It's not a defining characteristic, or a substantive point of commonality between its entries. For example, never having married before his death is not an inherently noteworthy fact about José Fernandez — people are not expected in 2016 to marry so young that being unmarried at age 24 would be unusual at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 11 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. Fenix down (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Stravino[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also fails WP:NSPORTS, hasn't played in a tier 1 international match as per [8]. Northern Mariana Islands are not FIFA-affiliated, therefore can't play tier 1 international matches. Simione001 (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep North marina islands may not be a member of FIFA but they are a member of the AFC, in a similar way to the gibraltar team. Also, he passes WP:GNG for acceptable coverage of being the oldest international outfield player in recent times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Gibraltar are part of FIFA, they are not similar at all. NMI are ineligible to qualify for the World Cup.Simione001 (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Apologies, I was unaware they were admitted a few months back, but prior to this their situation was similar — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Yes and all the player article have only been created since there admission. Please consider chamging your vote. Simione001 (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at worst Redirect - If not independently notable, clearly a plausible search term. Players discussed in specific section in nationalteam article here. Fenix down (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:42, 9 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. Clear consensus to delete, sole significant contributor requests deletion Fenix down (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Stafford[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also fails WP:NSPORTS, hasn't played in a tier 1 international match as per [9]. Northern Mariana Islands are not FIFA-affiliated, therefore can't play tier 1 international matches. Simione001 (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:43, 9 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) 07:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Roberts (Northern Mariana Island footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also fails WP:NSPORTS, hasn't played in a tier 1 international match as per [10]. Northern Mariana Islands are not FIFA-affiliated, therefore can't play tier 1 international matches. Simione001 (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Not independently notable but a plausible search term. Players discussed in specific section in nationalteam article here. Fenix down (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:56, 9 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) 08:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyce Mister[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also fails WP:NSPORTS, hasn't played in a tier 1 international match as per [11]. Northern Mariana Islands are not FIFA-affiliated, therefore can't play tier 1 international matches. Simione001 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Not independently notable but a plausible search term. Players discussed in specific section in nationalteam article here. Fenix down (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:56, 9 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) 08:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green Infinity[edit]

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

Article with no sources to show notability. Searching doesn't turn anything up. Delete per WP:N. Tassedethe (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also, I've got a very strong feeling the whole thing is a hoax, anyway. A guitar with "a contemporary vow for urban sustainability and environmental awareness within one singular energy field"? Please... Yintan  23:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An unreferenced article on what may be no more than a single item. (Could even be literally WP:MADEUP.) Searches are identifying nothing beyond mirror sites. Fails WP:NPRODUCT, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT and WP:GNG. I can't even begin to explain what a waste of bytes this is. How in Gad's name is this notable? Bearian (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a blatant hoax. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 20:40, 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 Procedural close. Page moved to draft space by Spinningspark (non-admin closure) — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotives International[edit]

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

This stub has no sources other than itself, the subject of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:45, 8 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 sole keep argument carries no weight without sources. A Traintalk 15:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk of the Hills[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This looks like a rather typical local church. I had to check that it was not associated with the influential Kenneth E. Hagin, whose church and college, surprisingly, are not in the category for Tulsa churches. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a poor quality article, but on a very notable church. The organization is notable both for its large size, and for its very public change in denominations. This kicked off a prolonged legal battle that set a precedent for many other churches. T-rex 13:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @T-rex: - thanks for your comment. I see you created the article ten years ago. If it's notable, are there some citations you can add? Blythwood (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article as it stands is just advertising, which could be improved. However, I can't find any substantial coverage apart from a small amount of local news about child abuse and theological disputes at the church. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:09, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Church[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The current article seems to describe a NN local church. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:17, 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. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 08:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aisa Kyon Hota Hai?[edit]

Aisa Kyon Hota Hai? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ek Jhalak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mem Sahib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Meena Bazaar (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nargis (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Parivartan (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apsara (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Faulad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
National Hero Shivaji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability for any of these films. All of these articles were created by Chandasmani, who was blocked as a sock puppet of Sulthan ameer. One of these, Faulad, had an earlier AfD that was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment all of these could be upgraded to start class with rs reviews but it would take a lot of work as they are not notable in their current state except for Faulad which MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs) improved and I would favour keeping, but the reality is that they all excluding Faulad qualify for speedy deletion G5 as they were created by a blocked sockpuppet and they have not had significant edits from other editors except Faulad which has, unless others disagree Atlantic306 (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep moving to keep and improve all, as they all seem to have had a national release there should be offline sources, also there is nothing even slightly contentious or blp like so there is not an immediate demand for references, but there is still the sockpuppet problem. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:V. It's unclear who would improve these articles which are now mostly uncited. IF these films are indeed notable someone (not a sock) would come along and create articles on them. WP:PROMO also applies; clearly created for promotional purposes. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and improve with the multiple available sources. To simply wonder who or when they will be corrected is a somewhat WP:IMPATIENT way to not build an encyclopedia, and I can only suggest that complaining is not a solution. For instance, I found it quite easy to take the nominated Aisa Kyon Hota Hai? and expand and source it. Sheesh. Stubs do not have to remain stubs. Schmidt, Michael Q. 22:52, 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. MBisanz talk 22:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surf Dive N Ski[edit]

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

Fails policy Notability (organizations and companies): 

 A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.

The Sydney Morning Herald source in the article has little Notability value per WP:ORGDEPTH, announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business. I did a rather extensive check of general Google search results and Google News search results and more. I found no additional sources making more than a passing mention of Surf Dive N Ski.

A prod on the article was contested as "article shouldn't be deleted as stores are everywhere".[12] Aside from being a rather subjective view, a "retailer operating over 85 stores" does not automatically entitle a company to an article here. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a business directory. Alsee (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lack of sources other than locations around Australia - primary sources, not enough to pass WP:NCORP Ajf773 (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'd give this a weak keep. The article could certainly require expansion and deeper resources, but being a relatively large retail store, I think it meets notability. If deletion is determined, might I suggest moving some of the content into parent company Billabong. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no evidence that it passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Some of the few references in reliable sources are about the former owners (with the store getting a single word mention). The best I found was this routine merger announcement which cannot help to pass CORPDEPTH. Accordingly delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there is a misread of WP:CORPDEPTH here. The exact line is "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business". A previous user above discussing the WP:CORPDEPTH left off the very important qualifier "brief". A review of the SMH article shows it is not brief, rather it is actually a bit extensive in discussing the topic. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an unremarkable retail chain; nothing in the article or offered at this AfD rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:26, 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norton-March Aircrew Association, Inc.[edit]

Norton-March Aircrew Association, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NORG and GNG. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability beyond possible local interest not shown and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 14:05, 13 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  10:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delphix[edit]

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

Clear and blatant advertisement whose article was also deleted in 2012 where it showed there was nothing to suggest an actual substance and believable article, and that's what we have here once again since none of this actually established both independent coverage and non-PR influences, all of the Forbes focus with PR and unconvincing "business specifics" aside from one who is then actually by a "special business contributor" (clearly PR-influenced), and the others are also then simply advertising or repeating what the company's own advertisements are. My own searches are then simply finding advertising and republished advertising so that's certainly not hopeful. Other things I'll note is (1) the advertising-only account was then linked to another troublesome user, who also involved himself with other advertisements (now deleted) and (2) other new accounts noticeably came and only focused with this one article, so that certainly shows this article is nowhere near being salvageable. SwisterTwister talk 19:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Google News is providing a great deal of coverage about this company. North America1000 22:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm seeing mainly press releases and reprinted press releases - David Gerard (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands per nom. "Keep" opiners seem unable to answer the question: "Is there any actual organic news coverage that wasn't initiated by a company PR outreach?" - David Gerard (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I do not see any keep !votes in this AFD yet, just commentary on the legit news reporting in reliable sources with significant coverage. No one is answering your biased and leading question because the sources already refute your vote. You have provided no evidence of your accusation of non-professionalism of the journalists in question, while another user has provided a good starter list of sources with a description of their methodology in choosing those sources. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Below are some bylined articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Note that these are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. North America1000 08:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewritten press release, article actually about their PR person, blog (WSJ blog are notorious for advertorial placement), rewritten press release, the Reg source may indicate wider notability but it's entirely company-supplied information. Is there any actual organic news coverage that wasn't initiated by a company PR outreach? - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those are some substantial accusations you've made. Do you have an specific evidence to refute that senior writer Serdar Yegulalp[13] from InfoWorld, technology reporter Rachael King[14] from the Wall Street Journal, executive editor for technical content Curtis Franklin Jr.[15] from InformationWeek, and Chris Mellor[16] from The Register have all supplied significant coverage and commentary on the article topic in reliable sources? -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is notably not at any point an answer to the question "Is there any actual organic news coverage that wasn't initiated by a company PR outreach?" - David Gerard (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued accusations against the professionalism of the bylined writers noted above would have some more weight if you actually had any evidence beyond your personal opinion of their performance. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is notably not at any point an answer to the question "Is there any actual organic news coverage that wasn't initiated by a company PR outreach?" You're just throwing up chaff now - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the AFD closer will be able to clearly see the weakness of your case and your continued wilful accusations against the professionalism of the journalists in question. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate spam; the articles exists solely to promote the business. With language such as "[Company] increases efficiency" blah blah, this was most likely created by paid editors, which is against policy. The rest of the material is not much better. "Delphix hires anti-PR bloke Silicon Valley Watcher as head of PR" (from the lowest of the low sources The Register) is very telling. Let's not encourage spammers by keeping such articles, as they not only do not provide any value to readers, they are also a time sink both at AfD and trying to maintain their neutrality (see WP:BOGOF). Salt while we are at it. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 14 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:SALTing can be asked for at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hitomi Tanaka[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards. Negligible independent reliable sourcing if any. Deleted in September 2015, recreated with just enough unsourced/trivial additional information do escape speedy deletion as a repost, but still has no legitimate assertion of notability or reliably sourced nontrivial biographical content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again. The only new fact since the previous deletion is winning a fan award. References are neither substantial nor reliable. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam: no meaningful bio data provided; insufficient RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 15:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT per above comments. 173.70.163.96 (talk) 04:55, 12 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. MER-C 03:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mobovivo[edit]

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

Not only deleted in 2006 which is a sign in and of itself, this current article is also simply an advertisement and it seems therefore a PR advertising campaign considering an article was also started for its businessman, my own searches are not finding anything but trivial and unconvincing PR and mentions (including at local news media, some of which literally found nothing at all), none of which can be taken seriously and heavily. SwisterTwister talk 18:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom I'm finding only press releases, reprinted press releases and passing mentions - no organic news coverage about the subject - David Gerard (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate spam; Wikipedia is not WP:WEBHOST to duplicate a company's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 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. despite the limited discussion, since the opinions are quite in line with WP policy. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of deputy mayor of Halifax, Nova Scotia[edit]

List of deputy mayor of Halifax, Nova Scotia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Deputy mayors of cities are not a topic we normally keep lists of, as it's not an inherently notable position — this is literally the only list of deputy mayors that actually exists on Wikipedia for any city in the entire world (even in the very few cities where we do have an article about the position, there still isn't a standalone list and usually there isn't even an embedded one — and even then "Deputy Mayor of (City)", if it exists on Wikipedia at all, is usually just a redirect to an article on the whole city council rather than a standalone topic.) City councils choose their deputy mayors by any number of different methods (internal vote of the council members, periodic rotation so that everybody on council gets a turn, direct accession of whichever councillor got the highest vote total in the ward elections, nepotistic appointment of the mayor's political allies, etc.), but in almost no city is it ever directly elected by the general public. Which means that a list of them is not normally a maintanable article — and if we can't generally keep lists of most cities' deputy mayors, we can't make a standalone exception just for Halifax alone. (In addition, on at least a couple of occasions people have wrongly construed the existence of this list as conferring an automatic WP:NPOL pass on the holders of the title...which it doesn't.) And, for that matter, even if it were to be kept it would still have to be moved to List of deputy mayors of Halifax, Nova Scotia anyway. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- all non notable individual and the topic area is quite esoteric -- deputy mayors? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 13 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. Sam Walton (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DataStax[edit]

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

Ridiculously kept at the 1st AfD since it had a pathetic amount of attention and even then the links listed there were trivial and unconvincing, but unfortunately no one cared to state and acknowledge this; this article contains not only what the company would solely say, but also trivial and unconvincing information and sources, even the best major news sources listed here are simply about PR information such as their own business activities and then having interviewed information; none of that is substantial and my own searches are mirroring this. In the past, there have been noticeable accounts with only heavily focusing with this one article, by either actually then adding advertising or copy-and-paste copyvio, and it's been happening for 2 years (of course, including when the article was started). SwisterTwister talk 18:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment  A Google search on [ridiculously] defines it as: "so as to invite mockery or derision; absurdly."  Merriam-webster.com defines it as:
arousing or deserving ridicule : extremely silly or unreasonable : absurd, preposterous
"ridicule" is defined with the "simple" definition as: "to laugh at and make jokes about (someone or something) in a cruel or harsh way : to make fun of (someone or something)"
Unscintillating (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  A Google search on [pathetic] defines it as:
1. arousing pity, especially through vulnerability or sadness.
2. relating to the emotions.
Merriam-webster.com defines it as:
1 : having a capacity to move one to either compassionate or contemptuous pity
2 : marked by sorrow or melancholy : sad
3 : pitifully inferior or inadequate <the restaurant's pathetic service>
4 : absurd, laughable <a pathetic costume>
Unscintillating (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  References in the article on 2013-02-10T14:02:28:
  • wiki.apache.org/cassandra/Committers
  • www.infoworld.com/t/database-administration/cassandra-12-database-better-geared-fat-servers-210072
  • www.informationweek.com/hardware/virtualization/riptano-offers-cassandra-commercial-supp/224600336
  • www.networkworld.com/community/blog/datastax-wants-make-cassandra-best-nosql-them
  • www.forbes.com/sites/tomtaulli/2012/10/03/datastax-wants-a-pound-of-flesh-from-oracle/
  • www.dbms2.com/2012/03/21/datastax-enterprise-2-0
  • www.techweb.com/news/240144124/13-big-data-vendors-to-watch-in-2013.html
  • jaxenter.com/could-cassandra-be-the-first-breakout-nosql-database-44849.html
  • online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130115-909630.html?mod=crnews
  • blogs.the451group.com/information_management/2012/05/30/a-different-perspective-on-nosql-vendor-traction/
  • www.eweek.com/database/apache-cassandra-based-datastax-community-edition-1.2-launches/
  • www.zdnet.com/datastax-1-2-on-windows-a-guided-tour_p9-7000010053/
  • www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/23/cassandra_mashed_with_hadoop/
  • www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/22/datastax_enterprise_cassandra_2_0/
  • www.drdobbs.com/open-source/datastax-manages-big-data-trio-real-time/232700037
Additional references mentioned in the AfD:
  • www.heraldonline.com/2013/01/15/4545144/research-and-markets-global-nosql.html
  • techblog.netflix.com/2011/01/nosql-at-netflix.html
  • lsvp.com/company/datastax/
  • www.meritechcapital.com/investments
  • jaxenter.com/could-cassandra-be-the-first-breakout-nosql-database-44849.html
  • www.forbes.com/sites/tomtaulli/2012/10/03/datastax-wants-a-pound-of-flesh-from-oracle/
Unscintillating (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have rewritten the article to remove promotional language, to achieve a more neutral tone, and to add back in reliable sources that had been deleted from earlier version. The article had gone downhill since it was last kept in the 2013 AfD. --Mark viking (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete still nothing swinging notability - sources are publicity, passing mentions or about Cassandra, and the same in what GNews gives me - David Gerard (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After the rewrite, the article is based on multiple reliable sources including articles Dr. Dobbs, InfoWorld, InformationWeek, eWeek, ZDnet, and NetworkWorld and content from a book from a reliable publisher. Most of these sources are in-depth. These multiple reliable sources establish notability per WP:GNG. Promotional and any copy vio problems were eliminated by the rewrite. A notable topic and and a modest start class article with WP:POTENTIAL for improvement all suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete As per nom. Adn analysing the sources or references. This article is list of highest degree of ridicule Wikipedia can have. Light2021 (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  This article is part of our coverage of NoSQL databases, which are used in the largest of databases.  Although still technically a startup, this particular company has products in one-third of the Fortune 100.  According to fortune.com, (Clancy, Heather [14 April 2015]. "DataStax just scored a big partnership with HP. Here's why."), for the September 2014 round of venture financing, the company was valued at $830 million.  Part of the impetus for this company comes from the fact that the technology was developed at Facebook before it was released as OpenSource in 2008.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:GNG: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], etc. etc. Also keep per WP:HEY, per Mark viking's work on the article. North America1000 15:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While several references such as Fortune magazine, Network world, Techcrunch and Information Week have been provided as a reason to Keep, those articles are really just promotional marketing pieces full of company-provided quotations and should not be considered as "independent". But the ZDNet article is good and the Russell Bradberry book reference is good. -- HighKing++ 12:14, 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 no consensus. Many various opinions here, but no consensus for a particular outcome has emerged within this discussion. North America1000 15:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Benn[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer who does not even come close to meeting WP:NBOX only claim to fame being the son of a more well-known boxer which is not relevant. This was a contested PROD with the contention that WP:GNG was met but I am pretty sure that is not the case. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He clearly doesn't meet WP:NBOX with a total of 4 minor pro fights. All of the coverage seems focused on the fact that his father was a notable boxer. His dad seems to be mentioned in either the headline or first sentence of the given sources. It's clear that if his father wasn't Nigel Benn, Conor wouldn't have an article (or likely a Reebok contract). I would suggest that, at least until he achieves some notable success as a boxer, a redirect might be more appropriate. Papaursa (talk) 05:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage tends to mention his father for obvious reasons, but it clearly is not the focus of all the coverage. If he wasn't any good he wouldn't be getting all this coverage - there's so much because he's seen as a potential future champion. --Michig (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If his father wasn't a champion, 4 fights against fighters who all have losing records wouldn't generate any buzz. Calling someone at this stage of his career "a potential future champion" seems like extreme WP:CRYSTALBALL and is a claim that could be made about virtually any young fighter. Seems like WP:NOTINHERITED also comes into play. Papaursa (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Just look at the lack of coverage for Chris Eubank's 'other son' (Nathaniel Wilson), who is at a similar stage in his career and whom people are not getting too excited about yet. Benn is getting onto top cards because there's so much interest in him. WP:CRYSTALBALL covers predictions of future events, not seeing talent in someone who could become successful. WP:NOTINHERITED might have applied if someone was arguing that Benn should have an article simply because of who his father is but nobody is arguing that - he has received coverage for his boxing career so is independently notable. --Michig (talk) 06:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as what stands and is stated here is that he is not applicable for the notability especially considering his career achievements so far, none of them have been for a notable and major event or happening; therefore even with sources, this would certainly still be questionable. SwisterTwister talk 02:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SwisterTwister. —Mythdon 11:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not independently notable of Reebok or Nigel Benn. Notability is not WP:INHERITed. Otherwise, no indications of significance or WP:SIGCOV as his own person to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Nigel Benn as a separate section within that article. He is the subject of significant secondary coverage but it exists only because of his family, and it would be logical to maintain this reliably sourced info in the article that gives it the appropriate context. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Professional fighter of promise at the start of his career. Cannot help get the feeling that deletion now will lead to future reinstatement and that this AFD is a little premature. 82.41.126.253 (talk) 16:40, 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.  Sandstein  10:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alaipayuthey tamil serial[edit]

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

An article about a Tamil language movie series. Whereas plenty of sources, including the website of the series, exist, and there is no doubt that this is not a hoax, I was not able to find a single reliable source describing the series, and, thus, that it passes WP:N. Ymblanter (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, very short. Agree that it doesn't pass WP:N. South Nashua (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- article in current state is nothing more than a crufty promo. Quis separabit? 15:07, 9 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 22:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avenged Sevenfold's untitled seventh studio album[edit]

Avenged Sevenfold's untitled seventh studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Much WP:TOOSOON. Also fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. TheKaphox T 17:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with no title, there can't be an article title! That is a no-brainer to me. Once it gets a title, it can be a redirect until it meets notability requirements. Kellymoat (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it has now been named, I still say delete. It is two months before it will be released. We do not know if it is will be notable or not. Too soon.Kellymoat (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Because Voltaic Oceans is mentioned in the two articles that I listed above, it is likely to be a valid search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But, if it ends up not being the title, the content of the correct article could say "originally planned to be titled". That way it shows up in a search.
Either way, there is no guarantee of notability for either (the album or the search term).
Kellymoat (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's likely the album will be entirely article-worthy ... once there's a firm title and release date. But until then, (1) WP:CRYSTAL (2) this is actually unacceptable as a title - David Gerard (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it is likely meet current wp standards for an article in the future. But not because it has a title and release date. Wikipedia isn't a running history of all things ever. It is an online encyclopedia, not every artist/album/song is important enough - and certainly not before their release.Kellymoat (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HAMMER, which almost has the status of CSD. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Neither the title of the album nor the release date have been reported or confirmed by the band or any record label with which they may be associated, this article is - so far - unfounded. Athies22 (talk) 04:04, 14 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) 08:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20s a Difficult Age[edit]

20s a Difficult Age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NALBUM, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:TOOSOON. TheKaphox T 17:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Soundcloud isn't a source. The article currently lacks information and sources. Kellymoat (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:18, 9 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) 08:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Sweet[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards or nonpromotional nominations. No reliably sourced biographical content. No independent sourcing The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real claim of passing the current PORNBIO guideline. No reliable source coverage. Claims of passing an earlier version of PORNBIO as a Hustler Honey did not save the article in 2007 and the guideline has been significantly tightened since then. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a BLP with no reliable sources listed; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable with no RS citing. Kierzek (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I made a good faith search for any sort of coverage in reliable sources and discovered nothing. Accordingly, I concur with the nominator's analysis. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 15:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable pronographic actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 9 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  10:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Golden body painting dance show[edit]

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

Based on the two sources, this appears to be a form of butoh that has existed since 1959 at least. Creator insists it is distinct from butoh. In any case, there is not enough here for an article; this document as it exists is mostly an unsourced, sort-of-Japanese-to-English-dictionary; not a WP article about a form of dance or street entertainment. Fails GNG, fails to provide much encyclopedic context at all. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance -related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is separated from butoh dance because it's a body painting dance show used in special events in Japan. Sarrena (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see any evidence that this is a distinct dance form, and more importantly, that it is a notable dance form. It seems like some performers used golden paint in a butoh performance. That doesn't mean it is a different dance form. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:43, 11 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. Based on the discussion here, there are no reliable or secondary sources that could be used to argue notability. I'll also salt this title, alternative titles should be reported to WP:RFPP for salting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Onnit[edit]

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

See my extensive PROD, Delete and Salt please as this has been deleted 3 times now. SwisterTwister talk 15:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both your link and the statement that this has been deleted three times seem to be about another article. Please slow down and take a bit more care about what you are doing. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not, I witnessed the other deletion and it was for this same exact company, which is worse the fact someone clearly unknowingly accepted from AfC. SwisterTwister talk 16:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think Swister meant to link to [37] which is where their PROD for this article appeared. However, I only see evidence that this article has been deleted once before. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SwisterTwister: I knowingly accepted this article. I thought (and still think) that this company meets notability criteria. It has multiple reliable sources. I accepted it after I did Google search and found more sources. I think it will survive AFD. Fuortu (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SwisterTwister, didn't it occur to you that it might be a good idea to click on your link as it was before you fixed it, and on the "logs" link above, before accusing me of lying? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I recommended this AfD twice before in 2016, and it was once deleted. I hope SwisterTwister's statement that the article be finally "salted" means it does not come back again. The company is not notable, reliable secondary sources are not used, and the content some editors wish to add is clearly promotional per WP:POVEDITOR. The article has the air of using WP for advertising to give a supplement company credibility and differentiation in a competitive market. --Zefr (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt in all plausible name variations. The closest to an RS here is the Rolling Stone Australia article (a few paragraphs interviewing the company founder in an article on nootropics in general), and that's not enough to swing a keep. GNews shows me little or nothing in the way of RSes actually about the company, and in fact mostly press releases for the mulitple other companies of this name - David Gerard (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I actually accepted this version of the article. Then, User:Zefr came and removed almost 60% of the content along with some reliable sources. If you haven't read talk page already, there is RFC discussion going on to restore some content. Fuortu (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    bizjournals is sponsored content, not RS. Such content should be removed; this is called "the improvement process at Wikipedia" - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What about other sources? Fuortu (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You claimed he removed RSes, I noted that the sources removed were bizjournals which is not an RS - David Gerard (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He removed one bizjournal and 3 other sources. 1 2 3 Fuortu (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources on nootropics are WP:PRIMARY, thoroughly conjectural and not applicable to actual effects per WP:MEDRS. The Austin Fit article is conspicuously a promotional blog, not WP:RS. --Zefr (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First source is 'Research article' reporting on original research which makes it a secondary source. Can you please explain why second source is primary source? I don't think it is a primary source. Austin Fit magazine is a reliable source. It talks about the success of this company. Fuortu (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This strongly suggests you don't understand the term "primary source", because that's what it is - David Gerard (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think first source is primarily source? It is clearly a research article Fuortu (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a research article, but also a primary source as it is a report of the results of a trial by the people who conducted that trial. A secondary source would be a review article by someone else that interpreted the results of various trials. Please read WP:MEDRS, which has already been liked linked above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I got it confused with review article, I guess. Fuortu (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking in any WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for the medical claims that were in a previous version of the article, and no non-PR sources for the non-medical things that this company does. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject is covered in reliable sources: Forbes, KXAN, Wrestling Inc., MMA Mania, Austin Culture Ramp. Though the page needs some work, the company is notable. There is nothing promotional with how the page currently reads. Meatsgains (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of these sources are bad - Forbes is a contributed blog, KXAN literally says "Sponsored by Onnit Academy", Wrestling Inc. is not an RS and mentions Onnit only in passing, MMA Mania is not an RS and only says the event's using Onnit, Austin Culture Map literally says "According to a press release" - David Gerard (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the company has recently gotten quite a bit of coverage for its partnership with Marvel. Meatsgains (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consistent with the Delete comments, a Marvel partnership is not WP:N, not WP:NPOV but is clearly WP:PROMO. --Zefr (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And which of those search results constitute significant coverage in independent reliable sources? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate spam; strictly promotional (minor awards / listings) & no substance. The sources offered offered at this AfD are unconvincing. Salt as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tallyfy[edit]

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

My extensive PROD removed by someone who is either involved with the company or an employee (especially considering the IP geolocates to the company's location), because they not only said WP: OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but they then said both "there's sources" and then the claims that I must be a company competitor; I still confirm everything from my PROD because everything in fact is still PR, both sources and information. SwisterTwister talk 15:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep I am a company rep and here's my case - which I consider valid. If you are going to delete this - are you also going to delete every other vendor in this category? Take a look at Kissflow for example - why does that exist? It follows that every other vendor with a few citations should be deleted too. It's unexplained that referencing an article with a range of citations is now called a REFBOMB - isn't that the point of Wikipedia and notability? I can provide a ton of other examples that merit deletion if this is the argument being made. Granted, as a company employee I may seem biased to you - but there's no argument to be made if the only reasoning here is that theres "too many references" - especially as multiple Wikipedia editors went through submission and cleanup. There is no justification for the vague notion of "corporate depth" either - because by that token - hundreds of pages of vendors in this and other categories would require deletion. - 12:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.210.78 (talk) . Update - a further comment - upon further reflection - these actions seems extreme and targeted at any person or page that seemingly looks like a small business. You need to make edits based on content not on making judgements about people from an armchair. All citations here are strong and reflect real notability. Please present a precise case why specific citations are not. I especially deplore the statement below about the "REFBOMB" - this is a ridiculous, sweeping statement to make without any detail or justification. Why don't we just call all Wikipedia article REFBOMBs? Is that fair?
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete that's a great REFBOMB but I'm unconvinced any of it has WP:CORPDEPTH - David Gerard (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Another Corporate SPAM Wikipedia facing these days in abundance! Delete as the "Keep" comment has made. Only promotions, The Blatant Kind. Light2021 (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--- Comment - Really? Why does a properly cited article suddenly become a "blatant kind" of promotion. Please name one citation that's out of place here. Instead of making a sweeping statement with no evidence - present a real case about why this article should not exist - while a range of others should. None of the "delete" statements here have noted anything specific except for a witchhunt with no evidence. Are you going to delete every company on Wikipedia? If not - why not?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Xboxmanwar (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big Baby D.R.A.M.[edit]

Big Baby D.R.A.M. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Put it to a vote - does a debut album that has not even been released meet notability requirements? Kellymoat (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but my vote is hardly unexpected since I am the one that nominated it. I am actually ok with a redirect to the artist (assuming the artist meets notability requirements). But I am simply not sure how a debut album could possibly meet notability requirements prior to it's release. Kellymoat (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplicate vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your vote, however, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America1000 16:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The album has been confirmed and upcoming soon. Xboxmanwar (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was "confirmed". How does that make it notable? Kellymoat (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It includes a notable single. Xboxmanwar (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But I didn't nominate the single (which was released 6 months ago) for deletion or redirection. Notability is not inherited. Albums must meet their individual criteria. (sorry, I don't have the links to the rules) Kellymoat (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Other album articles were created before it was released, examples are Birds in the Trap Sing McKnight, Trapsoul and Passion, Pain & Demon Slayin'. Check their history for proof. Xboxmanwar (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, you said your piece, now sit back and let others vote. Because I am finished with it and won't respond to you again. Otherwise, it will just be me and you going back and forth on a subject that we will never agree on. Secondly, about other articles - using the "but everyone else is doing it" excuse is never a good defense. Kellymoat (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This shouldn't be a surprise since I created the page, but there is a lot of credible sources out there that allows this to be a notable article, and the album comes out in less than two weeks, so what is the point of removing something that is credible and coming soon? JayPe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agreeing with JayPe. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON - doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS yet. David Gerard (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It will be released in 10 days. D.R.A.M. is successful artist and the album gonna be released by a major label. Now try to nominate Starboy for deletion and see how people gonna react. --Eurofan88 (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Eurofan88. Also, per WP:NALBUM, "an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label". The title, track listing, and release date have all been confirmed; therefore the article can exist. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - let it snowball. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above reasons. Aoba47 (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article is sourced, and almost certain to chart next week due to "Broccoli" being in the top 10 of the Hot 100, and D.R.A.M. already being on the Billboard 200 with his EP. It was released today, as well. Ss112 23:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Album is released and getting significant coverage and reviews from legitimate outlets. Joliv (talk) 04:04, 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) 08:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria–Nigeria football rivalry[edit]

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

This is one of a number of articles which seem to be about unremarkable 'rivalries' between Algeria & other nations. The fact that the other articles exist strengthens my case. The rivalry between Arsenal and Spurs is notable....it's been going on for ages. But (for instance) Arsenal and Man U are merely rivals in the sense that all other teams in a competitive sport are rivals. TheLongTone (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC) These are the others. There's also Algeria–Morocco football rivalry, currently a redlink but it's inclusion in the see also section of these articles suggests that it will be created. Given the geography, this actually seems the most credible candidate for notability.[reply]

  • Delete Algeria–Nigeria football rivalry. The article has no sources that describe this pair of teams as having a rivalry. The article creator may have been writing these articles without necessarily putting much care into all of them, given that all three of the leads mention that "football is Italy's national sport", although none of these articles are about the Italian football team. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - other than being in the northern half of Africa, there is no indication of any real rivalry here. See WP:NRIVALRY. Spiderone 09:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - fails WP:NRIVALRY. Geographic proximity does not automatically produce a rivalry. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So in all the world there football rivalry except africa. Hichem algerino 17:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure rivalries exists in African football, but they must meet WP:GNG to be included in Wikipedia. Right now there is little to suggest that these competitions meet GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - fails WP:NRIVALRY. Playing each other semi-regularly does not make a de facto rivalry. Fenix down (talk) 10:11, 10 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. MER-C 03:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Pacquiao Hearted Fist[edit]

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

This is a promotional article about a non-notable 'painting'. I changed it to a redirect to the perp,(who I believe is the creator of this thing, but got reverted. TheLongTone (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable and promotional. Not worth even a redirect. As per the nominator there is a clear COI for this article. The COI extends heavily into the article on the artist himself and also another painting article A Thousand and One Lives which should also be the subject of an AfD.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kellymoat (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Nickrds09 (Talk to me) 06:19, 10 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 22:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rutland Archipelago[edit]

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

I think an article with the same content already exists? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutland_Island UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep Delete Rutland Island is a part of the Rutland Archipelago. @UNSC Luke 1021: In any case if it were a duplication of content the proper thing to do is tag it for speedy deletion WP:CSD#A10 not open an AfD discussion. JbhTalk 15:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Striking until there is proof of existance. - Last edited: 15:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC) Change to delete. No evidence of existance/usage of term as a geographic feature. JbhTalk 13:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But what evidence is there that Rutland Island is part of the Rutland Archipelago, or even that a Rutland Archipelago exists? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Rutland Island definitely exists, not sure about the archipelago UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a hoax then all of the contributions of HonorTheIsland need to be checked. They have created a lot of island articles in the last couple of days. I am surprised they have not shown up here.

The search function at GEONAMES is not working for me so I have not been able to confirm it there. JbhTalk 14:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea anyway to check all his/her articles and verify the details. A month ago there was a row on Trinket Village] with clearly incorrect info added. And I do not remember how many unreliable tables I have removed. Unreliable as showing uninhabited islands with a capital and other settlements. In this case: I can not find any reliable source for the existence of the archipelago. The Banner talk 22:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rutland Island (though vice versa would work too); neither has sufficient notability independent of the other to justify two separate pages here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it does exist that would not work because we have several articles on its constituent islands which would make it pass WP:GEOLAND - Named natural features. If it does not exist then it should be deleted. JbhTalk 14:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (after edit conflict) I must ask again, what evidence is there that Rutland Archipelago even exists? Why redirect from what looks like a made-up hoax name? And of course Rutland Island is notable as an inhabited island, but this discussion is about the supposed archipelago, not the island. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the article by M. V. Portman (1899), A history of our Relations with the Andamanese he claims that the Onge tribe expansion outside of litle andaman island was the islands to the north of it, which were not inhabited, he called them Rutland Archipealgo. when onge tribe reached south andaman island, then they met hostility by other great andamanese tribes. Portman claims that onge people only settled in little andaman group and Rutland Archipelago. HonorTheIsland (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no firm evidence has been provided that this even exists. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comment, because an article that already basically covers the subject exists, and barely anything about the island mentioned here comes up. There is a Rutland Island in Ireland, which has a lot of information, but the only info on the Indian Rutland Island is this page and some Indian travel sites UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I struck and changed your "Delete" to "Comment" because your nomination of the article is, by definition, a !vote to delete. The only time, as a nominator, you would use another bolded !vote would be if you later think there should be a non-delete outcome. In that you would put the your changed !vote directly below your nomination statement. If everyone has voted "Keep" and you no longer think it should be deleted you write "Withdrawn by nominator" and the AfD can be speedily closed. If their have already been non-Keep !votes a withdrawal of is basicly a "Keep". You can place any changed !vote ie "Redirect", "Userfy" etc. below your nomination statement but make sure to give a reason becuase it, just like your nomination statement, is weighed by the closer when closing. If, in an AfD you did not start, you want to change your !vote you strike the original like I did above and underline the changed !vote and the reason for the change or new opinion Then sign at the end of your edited comment with something like Changed !vote ~~~~. See WP:REDACT for general information on editing your own comments. Hope this helps. Cheers. JbhTalk 13:13, 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  10:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chillhop[edit]

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

I looked everywhere, but I haven't found one good source that even mentions this genre. Not notable in the least bit. editorEهեইдအ😎 01:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete on balance - it seems to be a tag people are using (as "chillhop" or "chill-hop") and a term I see used in reviews, but I can't find anything (RS or unRS) either that talks about what it is. I'm willing to be convinced, but I suspect this is WP:TOOSOON for a genre - David Gerard (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 14:25, 8 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. MER-C 04:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cicero Group[edit]

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

Somehow and surprisingly removed (after it was PRODed) with the thin basis in that "there were news and that it was not an advertisement" but that's in fact what this is exactly; it's advertising what there to say about the company and its services and then having the sheerness to list such trivial PR awards, complete with the PR sources. Searches of course not finding anything but a few pieces of PR, nothing at local news media either, there's simply nothing at all actually suggesting this could ever be improved and accepted since the listed links themselves are simply PR links talking about the company itself or its activities (i.e "City gives company $2M for headquarters", "Cicero Group's new headquarters", "Cicero acquires company", etc."; I should then note the first immediate source....is the company's own website; that in itself is PR so the claims of this not being an advertisement are not relevant. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Sources are a flurry of fluff, no WP:CORPDEPTH - David Gerard (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs an overhaul but a google news search seems to indicate coverage in multiple reliable sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this version per WP:TNT / WP:PROMO; nothing to salvage here. No prejudice to recreation if someone wants to create a neutral article based on RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As it doesn't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:AUD. Almost all sources are local. Every single source I found is either a passing mention of a survey conducted by the company or "so and so from Cicero corp said" something. This doesn't amount to significant coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Another Corporate SPAM Wikiepdia facing these days in abundance!Light2021 (talk) 14:25, 14 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. consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pydio[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a software product directory. ubiquity (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn proposal to include other articles in this AfD

In response to a PROD, the article creator asserted that Pydio deserves an article just as much as OwnCloud and Seafile do. I took at look at these articles and found them even worse than the Pydio article in terms of sourcing and notability, so I am also proposing them for deletion:

Seafile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seafile
OwnCloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OwnCloud speedy keep

At the request of Sbmeirow (talk · contribs), I am opening separate discussions on them. ubiquity (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For the same reasons I PROD'd the page originally. Meatsgains (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about including other articles in this AfD, settled as noted above. ubiquity (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Seafile and OwnCloud should be removed from this nomination and nominated separately if desired. They are completely different subjects, with differing notability. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I removed the noticed from the Seafile and OwnCloud articles, because there isn't a dedicated discussion section for each one. These are 3 different products from 3 different sources, so they shouldn't be grouped into the same discussion section. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are similar products, and the articles have similar problems. ubiquity (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • But honestly, if you feel strongly about it, I will open a separate AfD for each one, and cross-reference them. It seemed to me that this would save time, per WP:MULTIAFD. ubiquity (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - until these are split into 3 different discussions. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. ubiquity (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMMENT - Thanks for the split. if you want to cleanup this section, you are welcome to delete all of my text and vote from "Pydio" discussion. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Several references to extensive coverage in independent reliable sources have now been added. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick google news search indicates coverage in reliable sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Software possesses relevance. Can also be found in German and French Wikipedia. --Minihaa (talk) 09:04, 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. clean consensus DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black Duck Software[edit]

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

Little to no evidence of notability. They incorporated, raised some money, and made some products, and that's about it. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate spam. AfD is not clean-up but neither are we obligated to keep articles on marginally notable subject that have likely been written by paid editors. Pls see WP:BOGOF. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  14:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If this company was notable enough, I would expect the defenders of the article to have posted references to show it. What's there is little more than routine financing announcements. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete - per Rwxrwxrwx, I'd have expected some convincing actual sources by now, rather than just philosophical handwaving from first principles (and funding rounds) - David Gerard (talk) 20:34, 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 23:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Devon Players[edit]

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

Non-notable theatre and film company. The citations for this article are mixed: about half are citations about the historical stories this theatre company have dramatized, but not about the company itself. Where the citations are about the company, they are either self-published, or amount to the type of local coverage any run-of-th-mill theatre company might garner. No indications of any significant coverage beyond local. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 15:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 15:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 14:14, 8 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) 08:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SF Tech Beat[edit]

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

no indication of meeting WP:notability guidelines. Short lived blog with very few google hits. Only sources given are either trivial (links to domain information or site rankings), or to the site itself. Google searches find very few hits and nothing of significance. noq (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what else to say really. Some people think it's important and some think its not. For most people in the city of San Francisco, SF Tech Beat made an impact on the direction of the technology scene, if I were to take a poll of 1000 people, I think its relevance would hover above 35% notability in a city of close to a million. Not everything is captured in the digital realm, and just because from your perspective its notwithstanding, especially due to your distance. It doesn't mean that it isn't notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seetler (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is a technology blog, published from 2014 to 2016. Thus, I would expect whatever attention it received to have been noticed and captured within the digital realm. If this blog had been particularly notable within the San Francisco community, other bloggers and web sites would have commented about it on their blogs and web sites. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless someone can produce evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which so far nobody has done. A Wikipedia editor speculating on what would be the outcome of a survey of people in San Francisco is not a reliable source, and even if we had evidence (not speculation), a lot of people thinking that something "made an impact" is not the basis on which Wikipedia's notability guidelines are based. The actual sources that we have are a whois record, a page not even mentioning SF Tech Beat (so far as I can see) and a traffic record for the site: none of those even begins to be relevant to Wikipedia's notability standards. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no evidence that this passes WP:NWEB. Simply existing is not equivalent to notability. There needs to be secondary sources about the subject itself and which discuss the subject in detail. As few passing mentions are not good enough. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this may well be an influential publication in the SF tech sphere, but I'm just not finding any WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to warrant keeping it. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:08, 10 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. No valid reason for deletion anyway (WP:CRUFT is an essay, and it's not clear how it applies here either) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of mascots[edit]

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

WP:CRUFT magnet, broken beyond repair, may never be able to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 13:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What has changed since you last nominated this a few months ago? Have you tried to fix anyting? I grant that there are no firm thresholds before renomination, but absent a change in a guideline, policy, or the content of the article in question, the same nominator renominating an article with no new or updated rationale is problematic. Jclemens (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove the non-notable entities. Looks like it could be somewhat useful to readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:05, 9 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) 08:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unar[edit]

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

I couldn't establish its WP:NOTABILITY. If deleted, Unar (disambiguation) should be moved to this page. Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, agtx 04:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, as the article creator of record, I am agnostic to its existence. It was created to replace a copyright problem. The source that confirmed the tribe's notability (such as it was even then) checked out as unverifiable by User:Sitush in 2014. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an unreferenced one-line essay; as at similar AfDs the existence of this subject is dubious. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 13:54, 8 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 Bastyr University. MBisanz talk 23:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Bastyr[edit]

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

Non-notable naturopath and chiropractor. He may only be notable to his namesake university. Very few sources exist that cover him in sufficient detail, most sources are very closely associated with the subject. Delta13C (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A university is not the sole source of notability for an individual. If it was, all the other individuals with universities named after them would also have their wiki pages deleted. Dr. Bastyr was an important historical figure in the history of medicine in Washington State. He was a licensed obstetrician as well as one of the fathers of the rebirth of naturopathic medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melapatella (talk • contribs) 14:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Very much disagree. Sure, his notability is mostly within the naturopathic community and regional to the Seattle/Washington state area, but there are 140K hits on Google, including obituaries in major newspapers and so on. I'm a skeptic and believe that as a naturopath he was completely deluded, but he's still notable and should be documented here. --Krelnik (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just did a Google search for "john bastyr" AND naturopathic, and the results that looked like RSes were a Seattle Time obituary, a couple journal articles in Naturopathic Doctors News and Review, and a few books published or written by naturopathic affiliated people/organizations. I noticed that there are A LOT of results, but I think that is because Bastyr University used to be called "John Bastyr University", which do not really contain information about the man. Delta13C (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Bastyr University - i looked and didn;t find sufficient number of independent RS to justify an article. Jytdog (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 13:54, 8 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.  Sandstein  10:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Narratives of Islamic Origins[edit]

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

Fails WP:BOOKCRIT. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 08:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 09:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 09:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fred Donner via {{r from book}}. The book does appear to exist, but sources give no more coverage than brief passing mentions, so it partially fails WP:GNG. Content is unsourced, so I'd rather not go merging stuff. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC) Keep. Certainly looks much better now than the previously unsourced three-line stub, thanks to Tokyogirl and Eperoton's sources. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The failure to even meet the WP:GNG has been mentioned; the book simply doesn't have evidence of any notability. That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect; I simply view deletion as the most preferable option. If the book really isn't notable, the chances that someone might search Wikipedia, fail to find it, and leave the site without then searching for the author are slim. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fred Donner. The book is certainly notable (JSTOR has five reviews ranging from positive to glowing [38][39][40][41][42]), but there's no reason to spin off this stub from the main article. No prejudice against recreating a substantial and policy-compliant version of the article. Eperoton (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Keep No rationale for deleting the improved version. Eperoton (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are enough sources to establish notability and a search shows that the work is considered to be pretty influential as far as today's Islam studies go, since it is repeatedly used as a source or mentioned in various works. ([43], [44], [45]) Per this link it also seems to be mentioned or used in at least one university course, as it is part of this syllabus for Hartford Seminary. I've fleshed the article out so it's more than just a stub and I think that the best option would be to get someone familiar with the work to further expand the article. I don't really think that redirecting it would do it a true service here. The article for the author has a brief overview but the book as a whole could be expanded more in its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 13:53, 8 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. postdlf (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of American football games in Europe with highest attendance[edit]

List of American football games in Europe with highest attendance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Refer to WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. Failure to demonstrate why this topic is notable. Spiderone 19:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article seems to be using a cramped definition of "American football games in Europe" to eliminate a number of games that achieved much higher attendance than any listed here. See NFL International Series#Game history, for example. The article is also mostly unsourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "All games played by European teams" - the games are played by European/Amateur teams. Most players of this teams are Europeans. You cant compare NFL International Series#Game history played by pro players with this games --Erixson (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- appears to be WP:LISTCRUFT & unclear why this article should exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete badly sourced list with no evidence of notability of the topic at whole. Prevan (talk) 14:10, 14 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. postdlf (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues[edit]

List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Much like a previous AfD, this also fails as per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. See LISTCRUFT points 1, 6, 10, 11, 12 amongst other points. Spiderone 20:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The idea that a list has to be "notable" is fairly silly, given what Wikipedia has become. Why force people to check 50 pages when someone compiled the info. in one place? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as NOTSTATS/LISTCRUFT. GiantSnowman 11:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there do not appear to be multiple sources tracking and ranking the leagues in this way. Eldumpo (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like a little more discussion on this. In principle, a list of most attended sports games/events/competitions or an article on the biggest attended events is of interest and is something that independent reliable sources are interested in. Equally, only one of those is really a list like this one - that is, the research from sporting intelligence. These sources just express an interest in the topic of most attended leagues. Clearly, this article as it stands is a mess and the list is prone to twisting in order for someone to list their favourite sport. While writing this I have begun to lean towards a weak keep with this article on the grounds that sources suggest that either this or a topic that this is getting close towards being is notable, though I could be argued back - I'd like to hear more from the nominator and/or those who've voted to delete as to their reasoning. I think that we need to look carefully at this article, alongside List of sports attendance figures, with a view to mergers/renamings/better defined splits as appropriate. I suppose that this can be summarized as an 'improve don't delete' argument which is one that often frustrates me but in this instance I think may be appropriate. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it does appear that a number of reliable sources may be tracking league attendances, although I would question what their references are, and we need to be clear they are not being taken from Wikipedia. However, if we are content with their sources I would suggest we delete this article, and add the above sources to List of sports attendance figures, with that list being significantly reduced to only include leagues being tracked by the references. Eldumpo (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unfortunately I did not see the previous AFD. As Super Nintendo Chalmers very correctly points out, that it is something that the media covers making it notable. And being that the numbers are in context and not just a spewing of stats it does not fail NOTSTATS. This is a perfectly acceptable list article. -DJSasso (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 13:34, 8 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) 08:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turntable (TLC song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. The song did not chart and it was not the subject of in-depth discussion in multiple secondary sources. Some references are supplied which contend that the song charted but instead they prove it did not chart. Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The references appear to have been simply copied from somewhere else without any regard to what they say as #3, and #4 have retrieval dates 4 years prior to the creation of this article, and none of the references actually support any of the statements being made in the article. As pointed out by the nominator, the references for charting actually show the complete opposite. -- Whpq (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - According to the article, the song was released 2 Feb 2003. I checked the Billboard Popsongs chart for the week of 8 Feb 2003 and the following few weeks. It isn't there. The chart performance is a fabrication. -- Whpq (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 13:34, 8 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. obvious promo for non-notable book Jimfbleak (talk) 06:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome To Horlickville![edit]

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

Delete-I do not find anything at all notable about the book. Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 13:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete= This article is the start of wealth of information regarding a history book filled with facts and true accounts of American football history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredrick Heinisch (talk • contribs) 00:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] [3]

References

  1. ^ RacineTornadoes
  2. ^ RacineLegion
  3. ^ William Horlick
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am confident that the subject matter is useful as a source for other articles. I am less confident that the subject is notable enough for its own article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:38, 9 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) 08:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blade Thompson[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No individuals awards, just awards/nom for videos he performed in. No referenced biographical content; no substantive biographical content. Just a laundry list of non-notable releases for a non-notable performer, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 8 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) 08:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kalaage[edit]

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

My PROD statement: Apart from the promotional undertone with which the page has been constructed, the page only poses as a platform for the company to get more users to sign up. As also seen in the company's site's main page where Wikipedia is mentioned under "Press Coverage", we have the reason to doubt that the creation of the article was bankrolled by the company itself. Additionally, the sources are mostly PR or "paid articles", whichever term works best for our understanding. As has been a practice here in recent times, we should stop companies from engaging in blatant advertising on Wikipedia. // However, after the evident pruning by the creator/editor, there is still the problem of PR as sources. The sources are PR because they only cover things that a company would know, as to what they are doing and what they are going to do. Moreover, don't understand why it's notable. It's just a startup getting funding from VCs, that's it. Again, the biggest evidence we have that this article only serves as a promotional bulletin board for the company is the company's website which boasts about it. This is something new and surprising. Please discuss. Nairspecht (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keepThe main source cited such as DNA[1] which has nothing to do with the company, I believe my fellow contributor thinks DNA is a media which is closely associated with the company or maybe get's paid for writing articles or PR but you may do a bit of research on DNA as well it's credibility and value as a newspaper. Second thing people from other countries and places should be open enough to understand the fact that there are things in our areas which are valuable and notable to our side of the world and these maybe insignificant to the majority of people around my fellow contributors from other places. The article was used to boast which maybe agreed but it can also be taken to be a matter of pride to have a wiki article about yourself and not be aware that this is considered as a Wikipedia-sin as per my fellow contributor. And when we talk about advertising on Wikipedia it would be funny to say that because if people come here by typing "kalaage' in google search that should mean they already know about the same and it is not like every other place on wikipedia has started to flash Kalaage as the cool new page on wikipedia which according to me would be the real advertising. I have mailed the company to remove the same and not to use it in such manner after learning about the same. I have improved the article and I am a bit new to Wikipedia contribution, so instead of friendly suggestions, I think this is blatant bullying of newbies on Wikipedia by people who have little or no knowledge about the subject. Please consider this thing that you can merely research using Google sitting on the other side of the world and not know the realities on ground. It is a unique kind of social network which is trying to connect online writers and trying to get them connected with publications who can eventually get them published as featured by yourstory which is a business watch from India. I can also come up with various counter arguments like you are from a competing organisation and trying to malign the article, as you have without any evidence said the the sources are "paid". And for the boasting point I have myself got to know it now and asked the company to put it down, I contacted them via email provided on the website[2]. Apart from that I am again requesting the fellow contributors to check on Google News and other sources. The page has been there since two months and this kind of balatant AfD out of the blue feels nothing but bullying for a newbie like me. I do not go on making pages like every other day but when I take my time out for something I try doing the best I can. Assefme (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Confirmed sock. Anup [Talk] 02:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://epaper.dnaindia.com/epapermain.aspx?eddate=2016-06-22&edcode=1310021
  2. ^ www.kalaage.net
  • DELETE: Subject lacks substantial coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, thus fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Anup [Talk] 08:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - apart from the blatantly promotional text and circumstances of creation, the sources are entirely primary and a basic WP:BEFORE turns up only press releases, press release reprints and funding rounds - David Gerard (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete – adopt rationale by @David Gerard. Quis separabit? 15:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Just quoting another user's statement is not helpful here. Please furnish your arguments. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nairspecht: You must NOT struck other person's !vote unless it is a double !vote or by a confirmed sock. Closing administrator will take care of what !vote weighs what. Ping @[email protected]:. Anup [Talk] 08:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nairspecht: -- do not strike anything written by another editor unless you are an admin with a valid reason to do so. Quis separabit? 13:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To whomever it may concern -- my delete vote is based on the fact that the article is clearly an exercise in COI/POV-worded unreliably sourced promotionalism, which is pretty much, IMO, what @David Gerard said, only better, which is why I adopt[ed] his rationale. Quis separabit? 13:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Smiley Sorry! I understand, and I apologize to both Rms125a and Anup Mehra. Best, Nairspecht (talk)

*Improve I would say the claims of sources being PRIMARY are not justified as all the sources are independent of the company. And I would still consider keeping if improved in terms of Neutral PoV. Enwrit (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC) — Enwrit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Confirmed sock. Anup [Talk] 15:52, 10 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. Or should that be dilite?  Sandstein  10:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HP Eletebook 8460P[edit]

HP Eletebook 8460P (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable hardware. WP:GNG Brianga (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Eletebook article, cutting down to the bare minimum info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xparasite9 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete asap. The title is spelled incorrectly and the product clearly does not have the notability to stand out. I would have sent this for PROD if this AfD request has not existed. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, my PROD was removed. Brianga (talk) 03:59, 30 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) 12:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we are not a product guide, and titles should be spelled correctly. W Nowicki (talk) 18:05, 14 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. But if nobody cites the supposedly existing reviews, they don't do us much good.  Sandstein  10:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HP Web Jetadmin[edit]

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

Non-notable piece of software. It exists, and is quite useful in the right place, but that doesn't mean it deserves an encyclopedia article. The only reason I even found the article is because I'm trying to turn a dead HP laserjet into a working one. Article has had a notability tag for 4 years Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 09:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google books show several reviews/articles in InfoWorld and PC Magazine. Pavlor (talk) 12:20, 9 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. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America1000 16:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CHM Records[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. None of the sources cited in the article mention "CHM Records". Minimal online sources found to support the notability of this company. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:53, 9 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) 08:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okehampton Argyle F.C.[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the requirements of WP:FOOTYN#Club notability Cabayi (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Doesn't meet the usual criteria regarding FA Cup and they haven't competed at Level 10 of the pyramid. The concept of being a club important to the local area doesn't cut it for me. That could apply to practically any club in the country. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Has never played at or above Level 10 in the English football pyramid, and I find no evidence that the club ever played in a national cup, so fails WP:FOOTYN. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't meet the criteria. Being "of local importance" is not a criterion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication of any participation in a national competition. No indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:44, 10 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) 08:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mousehole A.F.C.[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the requirements of WP:FOOTYN#Club notability Cabayi (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep won promotion from a tier 11 league to a tier 10 league in 2015/16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although Mousehole won the division in the 2015–16 season, they were not promoted because they did not apply for promotion. This means they are still playing at Level 11 of the English football pyramid, not at Level 10. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 07:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - never played in the top ten levels of the English football league system or a national cup. Try again if they win the league again and actually opt to go up this time........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication of any participation in a national competition. No indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in agreement that it fails WP:FOOTYN Spiderone 09:51, 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 merge to Githzerai.  Sandstein  10:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zerthimon[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closure comment - I originally closed as Merge as bizarrely I thought the date said the 2nd, Perhaps this was an accidental close but anyway reopening and my apologies for the closure. –Davey2010Talk 15:10, 9 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 Orcus (Dungeons & Dragons). Selectively; what is sourceable.  Sandstein  10:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cult of Orcus[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge back to Orcus (Dungeons & Dragons), from which it was originally split due to length. I think that we have established that Orcus is one of the most significant figures in this fictional universe. Things associated with Orcus are therefore bound to be used as plot elements in stories and other works within the franchise. On this score, the Cult of Orcus is comparable to the Death Eaters of the Harry Potter universe, or the Sith of the Star Wars universe. bd2412 T 13:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I think the main article is probably one of the few truly notable fictional D&D subjects, the actual content in the article can easily be cut down to below half with little issue. If this particular topic is not notable, it should have been appropriately trimmed rather than split. As this article is fully plot information and does not establish notability, I cannot see any justified reason in keeping it split due to size issues. TTN (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't write the content, I just broke it out and formatted it. However, someone went to the trouble of writing all of this, and I see no need to diminish the work that has been contributed. bd2412 T 20:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per BD2412. BOZ (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and trim appropriately per the above. Jclemens (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or maybe merge to Orcus (Dungeons & Dragons). A bunch of primary sources can't establish notability. This kind of detailed, in-universe history belongs on Wikia. I guess this could be selectively merged, but it's waaay too detailed to be copy-pasted. We can't document every single aspect of D&D on Wikipedia. This isn't a D&D fan site. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the article on Orcus himself; if this makes the article too long, a trim is appropriate. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Orcus (Dungeons & Dragons), as recommended above. Aoba47 (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 12 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 23:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanseirui[edit]

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

This is a small article only relevant to the parent article Uechi-ryu and perhaps Goju-ryu. No new information that is not contained in those articles.TheDoctorX (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article has no significant coverage from any independent sources nor did my own search find anything that would support a claim of meeting WP:GNG. There are hundreds, probably thousands of karate kata, but there's nothing that shows this one is significantly more important than the others. Papaursa (talk) 21:18, 14 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. If this isn't a hoax, then it is so wide of the mark in terms of accuracy as to be of no use whatsoever. Fenix down (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pavol Inga[edit]

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

Article was tagged as hoax, but the speedy tag was removed and a WP:PROD tag added, citing GNG failure. However, the article is a blatant hoax, as detailed below, and hopefully will go quicker via AfD than via PROD.

  1. None of the "sources" cited in the article mention the subject
  2. I get just eleven Ghits for "Pavol Inga", three of which are to Wikipedia (the creator has also made an article on ro.wiki for this subject) or Commons, none of which refer to football. This is hardly likely for a current international footballer
  3. If this person were playing for FC Petrocub Hîncești, his name would appear in their squad list at worldfootball.net (ref #7 in the article); it doesn't
  4. That club played no matches on the dates that subject was supposed to have made his debut and scored his first goal (assuming the 2016 is a typo for 2015); no such person appears in the squad for the current season or for 2015/16, when he was supposed to have scored 15 goals. See Soccerway (ref#6 in the article)
  5. If this person had played in the international match against Malta last March, his name would be listed in the lineup {ref#8 in the article); it isn't. Or at national-football-teams.com. Or at the Moldova Football Federation website, who you'd think might know.
  6. The image is a copyvio of this one on the Crewe Guardian website which shows Pavol Suhaj, then playing for Nantwich Town F.C. It's hosted at a one-page create-your-own-free-website laughingly called plymouthargyleoffical.weebly.com

Suggest speedy deletion. Struway2 (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as hoax Spiderone 09:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that the sources don't mention Inga. Also, I couldn't find anything on a google search.ReusGang (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - probable hoax; either way certainly not notable. GiantSnowman 10:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Is briefly mentioned on an article on revoly.com, probably did play for said club at some point but article is possibly highly exaggerated. There are also some sources citing a player called Pavol Suez-Inga (that is his given name in the article), which could possibly be the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DasTheGreen (talk • [) 11:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide solid evidence? I have never heard of revoly.com and can't find that website. Spiderone 13:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

revolvy.com* apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DasTheGreen (talk • ) 16:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fictive football player.deleted without any discussions and handed a long term ban to the author..Kolya77 (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:52, 9 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 argument is not addressing the deletion arguments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teflon (nickname)[edit]

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

I'm a little on the fence about this one, but...this article really just seems like a bunch of listcruft, despite the sources—speaking of that, most of the articles in the list of "uses" (examples) are sourced, but there are no sources for the term itself. It seems like random users just popped in over time and listed their favorite Teflon-like public figure. (I didn't notify the article creator because s/he retired back in 2010.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 09:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SN: You can tell that this article was created back in simpler times, considering that the first AfD resulted in an NAC "keep" closure despite some "delete" !votes being present. Erpert blah, blah, blah...
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's just an indiscriminate list of anytime anyone has been described as teflon, which is a fairly common and fleeting metaphor. I can tell you that Stephen Harper is remembered here in many ways, but "teflon" isn't one of them. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Any public figure who avoids damage from scandals is likely to be called "teflon" at some stage. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and terms such as this are worthy of pages. If you feel the list reflects bias than delete it. But the article itself should be kept. Charles Essie (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; it does not (generally) have pages about terms. That is the job of a dictionary; see WP:NOTDIC. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 01:09, 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  10:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Panghal[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. There is another clan called the Pangal, who have had disputes with the Meitei people (see here), but that is not offered as an alternate spelling and I suspect that the pronunciation might be different. Bhim Singh Dahiya, for whom we once had an article, seems to mention them in passing ([46]) but he is known to be a pseudo-historian. Other than that, my checks at GBooks, JSTOR, news sources etc are only returning mirrors and unreliable British Raj sources. The same applies to my own personal library of caste-related books. Sitush (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 16:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: didn't find anything that would suggest WP:GNG for this topic. Anup [Talk] 18:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:48, 2 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) 08:41, 8 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) 08:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Night[edit]

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

The article does not meet BIO or PORNBIO; the awards listed are scene related and / or not significant and well known. The article is sourced to directory listings or award information. No meaningful bio content provided; no significant RS coverage can be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I also concur, listed awards are either simply nominations or then unconvincing such as for being part of an ensemble. SwisterTwister talk 20:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - many international awards and nominations. Notable.
    Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     21:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which awards are "significant and well known" to satisfy WP:PORNBIO? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 15:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The above keep vote ignores that nominations do not count, only wins. None of the awards are significant so we must delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:PORNBIO -- simply not enough body of work. Quis separabit? 00:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another BLP without significant reliably sourced biographical content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hardly any coverage to satisfy GNG. I don't care about PORNBIO in this case and would !vote delete regardless. WP:WHYN requires that we have enough reliable sources to write an NPOV article about the subject. When these sources do not exist, there is no point in creating a 2 line article simply because the subject may have won some industry award. Keeping article like these essentially makes Wikipedia a directory. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:41, 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. MER-C 03:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infolinks[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, sources are all blogs or press releases. McGeddon (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as entirely an advertisement, only focusing with what either the company says about itself or others republishing these same words, the article is an advertisement and it's clear these were the intentions from the beginning (note the several accounts focusing with this one article). SwisterTwister talk 03:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: an entity which advertises others, appears to be in need to advertise itself, but chose wrong platform. fails WP:NCORP too. Anup [Talk] 16:42, 9 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) 08:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vijaya bhaskar d[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unavailability of reliable sources to back-up a BLP article. It appears to be failing both, WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR. Anup [Talk] 11:53, 1 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) 05:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication of notability per GNG, DIRECTOR, and ANYBIO Steve Quinn (talk) 05:31, 8 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. While there's low participation, the fact that this is a BLP with source issues and irrelevant claims, I'm going ahead with the deletion that's recommended. —SpacemanSpiff 14:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ramaiah Kuntumalla[edit]

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

After the BLP Prod was placed, the editor who created the article moved the article to a non-existing user's userspace, then copied the article back and removed the BLP Prod. There is one source provided which looks unreliable. Irrespective of that, the subject does not qualify either on GNG or SNG. Lourdes 07:24, 23 September 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) 11:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A7 material. I fail to see any claim of notability in article; that filmography section is misleading. Anup [Talk] 04:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:07, 30 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) 05:26, 8 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) 08:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Nazis in the USA[edit]

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

Machine translated mess that has not even been formatted. Maybe an article could be written about this subject, but this needs WP:TNT Jac16888 Talk 23:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:08, 1 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) 05:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think anyone is going to work on this. I'm not. If someone actually does want to work on it, well, all they need to do is click on the button to create a brand-new machine-translated article. So, what's lost by deleting this? Per WP:MACHINETRANSLATION: "Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Duplicate, and so badly written initially and equally badly translated as to be not worth salvaging. (Also, any article that uses Charles Higham as a credible source probably fails NPOV just on the face of it.) Anmccaff (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Look at this shotgunned request for transalation of the article. Is there a way of requesting cleanup of the Portugese version? Anmccaff (talk) 07:25, 10 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. MER-C 03:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Journyx[edit]

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

Unbelievable kept of course in 2006 since no one actually cared, or at least substantially cared about the concerns of articles now, since this is simply an advertisement, sourced by its own published-republished PR and words, and that's also what I'm finding with my own searches; history also shows likely advertising initiations, likely either involved or influenced by the company. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is a thinly veiled advertisement. Reyk YO! 07:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, this is a blatant advertisement. I can't turn up any RS coverage beyond category reviews - David Gerard (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. possibly speedy G11 as an advertisement. The only thing notable here is the products this program claims to work with as an add-in. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 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 no consensus. North America1000 17:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Sanghera[edit]

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

I do not see sufficient references for notability. (the article was considerably promotional in an earlier state, but that's been fixed) DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. When I was removing the peacockery from the article I checked the sources, and she does seem to be the expert to call when newspapers and broadcasters need info about cultural abuse. Google News gives some more links. On the other hand, she didn't receive any major awards or such, and supporting abuse victims is very noble but doesn't make you notable. I'm a bit on the fence. Yintan  21:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, added women project to article talkpage so participants are notified of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The coverage is not enough about her for the articles to lead to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I could find lots of mentions of her in news articles, but no significant coverage in independent reliable sources apart from two articles [47] [48] in the Coventry Telegraph, and I'm not convinced two articles in the same local newspaper are sufficient to meet WP:BASIC. Qwfp (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly meets WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep She did win a DIVA of color 2016 award [49], European Inspiring women List & Pride of Coventry and Warwicksire [50], and Extraordinary Lady’s Awarded [51] -- but they seem rather minor. Frederika Eilers (talk) 14:43, 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 speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. —C.Fred (talk), as nominator, 20:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adath Israel Congregation (Toronto)[edit]

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

Roughly a decade ago, this article was nominated for deletion. It survived then. However, what I see today is a page about a local place of worship with no indication of notability outside the local area that is devoid of independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per notability (established by WP:RS) relating to certain policies found during the previous AFD. That content was removed by someone adffiliated with the synagogue itself, who instead added lots of generic/promotional-tone and copyvio. I've removed the copyvio and revived the previous content that was removed for no obvious reason. Even as of 2011, the policies and their anomalous nature were still a topic for independent reporting ([52] and others). DMacks (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DMacks. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The size, scope and history of the congregation are clear evidence of notability. The article will benefit from expansion with the ample available additional sources. Alansohn (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serves me right for not digging deeper into the article history. Nomination withdrawn. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 9 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) Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yū Shimamura[edit]

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

Little to no significant roles. Almost completely unsourced. Where's the significant news coverage needed to display notability? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ANN analysis [53] 1) Kaoru in Aldnoah.Zero - supporting 2) Annie Leonhardt in Attack on Titan - supporting 3) Akiko in Bungo Stray Dogs - main cast 4) Haruka Haruno / Cure Flora in Go Princess PreCure - main, she's a precure, that's going to reprise 5) Aida in Gundam Reconguista in G - main chars on the other party 6) Toru Takagami in Our Home's Fox Deity - main 7) Faylin - Tanken Driland sennen no maho - Main Should be enough to meet WP:ENT AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:ENT with the major roles, sources can be filled in from JA: Wiki. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm noticing that a number of these Japanese VA articles are virtually nothing but a "credits list". They more or less read like a resume, like this one. If there's nothing actually to be said on some of these, I think they may as well be redirected to their primary role or something, until an actual article can be written. Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You took the words right out of my mouth - yes, it is important to assert the subject's notability by analysing their roles, but I think it is also equally important that a brief referenced bio be written on their articles as well. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:16, 29 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) 04:32, 8 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) 08:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kouichi Belgira[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 04:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 04:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 04:36, 8 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) 07:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LexJet[edit]

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

Ridiculously kept in 2008 which was a ridiculous "AfD nomination" at several levels than simply one, this article is entirely a blatant advertisement for a company who would of course use PR for advertising itself, my own searches are then finding nothing, let alone something that would've been substantial, everything listed here is an explosive advertisement in focusing with only what the company would say itself. Not only has this article barely changed, there were also accounts focusing with this one article alone, considering the blatancy here, it of course suggests it was company involvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:28, 8 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]
  • Delete reading this article is like visiting the realm of the banal and mundane. Thankfully, I was able to finish it before I started snoring. This is totally spam. The sources are press releases, announcements, repackaged press releases, and the like. I do like the Chicago Tribune article; journalistic integrity is present, but this does not qualify as significant coverage. Yet, if we had five or six more like this one, the coverage would probably be sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH - but alas we do not. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion per WP:PROMO. Also, this topic fails GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:20, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 02:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

InfoBeans[edit]

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

Deleted 3 times now, once by AfD last year and this was actually unbelievable accepted at AfC within a month of its AfD deletion, everything listed here is simply advertising and simply because it's listed at the National Stock Exchange of India means nothing if it's still one thing: advertising and a blatant one at that because this was deleted once before by PROD but restored by request, deleted at AfD, and then restarted, so that shows the persistent advertising attempts, presumably by the company itself since there's only been one current account actively involved with this one article. The sources listed themselves are simply trivial PR, republished PR, trivial PR awards and accomplishments and other company activities, my own searches are also finding these. Therefore considering the apparent persistent PR attempts, I would suggest a Salting because given the past deletions, this should at least be reviewed once again and thoroughly before ever moving to mainspace again, if that should ever happen. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In fairness, from looking at the contributor's Talk page, there was some post-AfD discussion/guidance around the AfC draft before it was accepted. I have added a notice there to inform the article author of this AfD discussion. I have also requested that a Connected Contributor declaration be disclosed on the article Talk page.AllyD (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom - the RS coverage I could find is corporate funding and ownership coverage and passing mentions, no WP:CORPDEPTH - David Gerard (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: The article has it's own importance but it was written like an add page. Rewriting is required. Runku4g (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font.  22:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]
  • Comment: See User_talk:VirtualAvi#Reply_from_author_VirtualAvi for input relating to this discussion from the article originator. AllyD (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't seem to address anything at all of my objections - David Gerard (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The content of this instance of the article concentrates on best-place-to-work awards, ratings firms' evaluations and CMMi accreditation, all of which may be gratifying for those involved but are not of encyclopaedic notability, along with the background activities of its founders which, if they are notable, are not inherited by the company. There is also the use of the firm as an example in a couple of case studies. In these and in repeating my searches from the February 2015 AfD there is sufficient to confirm this as a firm going about its business but insufficient to indicate that an article on the firm adds value to the encyclopaedia (rather than vice versa), so I am staying with my opinion from the AfD on the earlier article. AllyD (talk) 15:19, 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. MER-C 03:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clickbooth[edit]

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

Deleted before in 2011 until it was immediately restarted by moving a Userspace Draft to mainspace, but there's literally nothing for actual independent notability and substance here since it only heavily focuses with 2 things: PR and the 1 law case, of which I'm only finding a few mere news mentions for, so there's nothing for what we would need for a convincing article, especially since this has also literally not changed since then. As always and this is not surprising, there are IPs and accounts that suggest the company was involved with this article. SwisterTwister talk 03:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. Created by Special:Contributions/Johnintegraclick with no other contribution so paid editing is about 100% certain. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above - advertising for advertising. I can find RSes for their patent litigation and their FTC penalty (fine for run-of-the-mill acai berry spam), but I'm not sure those swing them to sufficient notoriety to pass WP:CORPDEPTH - David Gerard (talk) 09:28, 9 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Keller[edit]

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

This individual does not appear to meet academic notability guidelines. (If this article can be improved within seven days, it may meet notability.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is this nomination a hoax? 19 publications with over 100 cites each romps through WP:Prof#C1. Nominator deserves a mighty WP:Trout. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Delete: article as it exists is a resume/CV. Suggest those who want to keep get started on improving it. Quis separabit? 15:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Change vote to Keep upon re-examination. Quis separabit? 13:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm as confused as Xxanthippe. According to Google Scholar he is extremely widely cited, showing a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. The resumeness or otherwise of the article is irrelevant; deletion is not cleanup. And what's happening in seven days? Joe Roe (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The brevity of the BLP is a virtue: better than endless paragraphs of promotional bloat that one finds in some. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 9 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) 08:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhary Wahab Uzair[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:BLP, fails WP:BASIC Infinity Knight (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 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 01:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm willing to withdraw this comment if somebody can actually provide a reliable source to properly verify that he actually serves in the legislature, but his total failure to be named at all in List of members of the 14th National Assembly of Pakistan suggests that this may be a WP:HOAX — I even checked against the oldest version of that article just in case he was formerly in there and then got removed for some reason, but that wasn't the case either — and even a politician who does have a clean WP:NPOL pass still has to be sourced as having a clean NPOL pass. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:V. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 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 Keep All. No agreement for deletion on any of these articles, however some "Keep" opinions are stronger than others. No prejudice against individually nominating some of the weaker ones if someone wants to take a closer look. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

State v. Leidholm[edit]

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

Also nominating- Dawkins v. State
People v. Gleghorn
People v. La Voie
Stephenson v. State
Hannah v. Commonwealth
People v. Anderson (1968)

Not notable state supreme court or appeals court decisions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - These are literally "textbook cases", they are cases that receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources such as legal case textbooks and scholastic legal works, in addition to being widely referenced in decisions of courts in other cases, which are also reliable secondary sources. These cases meet WP:Notability because they have WP:RS significant secondary source coverage in major mainstream and classic law school case textbooks that have been used nationally for decades, such as those used at Harvard University or Stanford University. Independently, they meet WP:NOTE by have significant secondary source coverage in cases in other jurisdictions, which point to them as being seminal or illustrative in establishing common law on their topics. They also have secondary source coverage in mainstream academic articles.
State v. Leidholm has its own chapter in the 7th edition of the standard first year law criminal law casebook, used at Stanford University and all over the US. There are the numerous scholarly articles about it, e.g., The Meaning of Equality for Battered Woman Who Kill Men in Self-Defense, in Harvard Women's Law Journal. Here are some more. The case is notable in that it is widely referred to as being illustrative of major common law principals, in other decisions in other jurisdictions, not just in the state in which the decision was issued. Similarly for the other cases. MBUSHIstory (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • These articles are sufficiently similar that the mass-nomination makes some sense (they all cite the same textbook), but some more individual consideration in the nomination would be helpful. Anyway, as to each:
    • State v. Leidholm - keep - per MBUSHIstory, in particular the reference to this case having its own chapter, which is unusual, and also due to the sheer number of sources cited in the article (four) that write about this case.
    • Dawkins v. State weak keep as it deals with legal doctrine that is unfortunately timely and I suspect responding to recent events.
    • People v. Gleghorn neutral at this time. keep based on additional refs.--Chaser (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • People v. La Voie tentative keep as this appears to be a potentially landmark case on this issue in that state.
    • Stephenson v. State keep as it affirms the conviction and decades-long sentence of a KKK leader, which event led to the demise of the Klan. In addition, this case deals with unusual facts in the felony murder context, and probably doctrinal developments in that area as well.
    • Hannah v. Commonwealth keep as "often cited".
    • People v. Anderson (1968) weak keep as this case appears to clarify an important part of homicide law in a large jurisdiction.--Chaser (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I went back and added content that indicates why the cases are notable, as well as adding secondary sources in which the cases received significant coverage, using a Google Scholar search. When the nomination was first made, some of these articles may have had no source, nor any indication as to why the cases were notable. This may satisfy the nominator as to their notability. If not, there are still more secondary sources that can be found in a Google Scholar search. MBUSHIstory (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:35, 8 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) 08:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesia (Anahí song)[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC, Unremarkable song.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: an editor with the same name as the artist has been creating articles over the last few days for every album and single made by Anahí. The albums pass WP:NMUSIC as they have charted in several countries, but very few of the singles pass notability. The editor also created track listing templates for all the albums, which I would suggest are unnecessary. Richard3120 (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per KGirlTrucker81.—Fundude99talk to me 04:47, 14 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_October_8&oldid=1142620665"