Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 August	2 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Expulsion (film)

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

short article about an old, lost, silent movie. does not seem to be independently notable. Since it is a lost silent movie from close to a hundred years ago, it wouldn't be able to get expanded from a stub anyway Wasabi,the,one (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A film by the great F. W. Murnau about which significant information exists; no reason to delete it. Lotte Eisner goes into detail about the plot and critical response in her 1972 book about Murnau.[1] Coverage in other books, in English and in German, is evident from a look at the find sources links above. Another alternative title was Driven from Home [2] --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos. All properly sourced films, regardless of age or existence status, have a place within Wikipedia, especially those directed by iconic filmmakers such as Murnau. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (snow keep?) per the above, especially the substantial coverage in the Eisner book. AllyD (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos and WP:BEFORE. I found another source through Google books that gives a bit more depth, including stills from the film (added to the article). I'll assume good faith that the nom knows all about F. W. Murnau and how important his films are to the history of cinema. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although a quick look at the nom's recent history shows they're a new editor, starting lots of AfDs, and all the ones I've checked have been speedy keeps. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos and Lugnuts. Meets WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train^talk 22:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Alquilar

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

Article fails to demonstrate notability. Primary reason for notability seems to have been her misspelling of names, as an artist, in a commissioned mural. See WP:BLP1E. Only refs are an obituary and a Salon slide show caption (not usually a valid citation) about "tragic moments in spelling". General Ization ^Talk 23:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please look outside of the article for sources. I found out that she's in the Smithsonian collection and she's written up in this Biographical Dictionary. She has works in the collections of several other museums. I'm updating her article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Criteria noted by nominating editor is no longer valid. Additional references added to re-inforce notability. Article needs expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Anybody listed in North American Women Artists of the Twentieth Century: A Biographical Dictionary, widely cited on Wikipedia, seems notable. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ARTIST 4(d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, as cited in North American Women Artists of the Twentieth Century: A Biographical Dictionary.Mduvekot (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article as it sits now notes her work is in several major collections, including the Smithsonian. Meets GNG and WP:ARTIST. Montanabw^(talk) 06:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowkeep. Per previous consensus notability is established by being listed on the NRHP. See also WP:GEOFEAT. De728631 (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beal-Gaillard House

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

Not very notable Wasabi,the,one (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places is usually considered to be evidence of notability. Is there any reason why this should be an exception? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the longstanding consensus that buildings listed on the NRHP are notable. And coverage of this house in other books can also be seen by clicking "books" in the find sources link above.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOFEAT and Arxiloxos. Also see WP:NPLACE. clpo13_(talk) 23:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nom needs to do better than "not very notable" as being a HRHP designate means there is in-depth description, history and significance coverage as all NRHPs have such. --Oakshade (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - without words Agathoclea (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this looks notable to me in the geographical context. Such a building wouldn't necessarily be notable in a western European country where listed buildings tend to be older, but this looks to be historically significant. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By !voting keep here I can help my AfD score. I tilted at a windmill a while back and nominated something for deletion that turned into snow keep so this freebie will make up for that. Subject is notable per WP:GEOFEAT. New editors should spend more time at countervandalism and less time at AfD if they don't know notability criteria. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and SNOW Keep considering WP: POLITICIAN (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 18:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Gbabojor Pondi

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

Advertising and fluff, with half the article unsourced. I suggest WP:TNT The Banner talk 20:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject is a Member of National Assembly,[3] passing WP:POLITICIAN. If nuke and pave is called for, why not stubefy? • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - the subject basically passes WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN per the sources, although it lacks inline citations and looks promotional. TNT should be applied. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 06:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove unsourced material and that based on non-RS - almost unintelligible open letter from a student etc. - Arjayay (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article definitely needs improvement, but a person who is verifiable as having served in a national legislature is kept and flagged for cleanup, not deleted — for all the article's problems, not a single one of them can't be adequately handled through the normal editing process. Keep and flag for cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Barrell

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

Delete. Despite Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Barrell having closed as a delete, a good faith attempt was made to recreate this with more sourcing than was shown the first time — so I'm not speedying this G4 as a recreation of deleted content. But unfortunately, the new sourcing isn't better, and still doesn't get her over the WP:NACTOR bar — except for one reliable source which verifies the existence of a series that she's in but fails to contain any mention of her at all, the sourcing here is still parked entirely on blogs, primary sources and user-generated content sites (Digital Journal, especially, being notorious for frequent misuse as a platform for creating and distributing self-published "sourcing" to support the creation of Wikipedia articles — a concern which is not assuaged by the fact that the Digital Journal article is conveniently dated as having been created and posted to DJ during our conduct of the first AFD discussion.) There is still zero evidence of any reliable source coverage about her, which means this is still not includable. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically in regards to the dating of the Digital Journal article, I wouldn't be too concerned about self-published sourcing in this case. The publishing date indicates that the interview would have taken place following episode 9 of Wynonna Earp (in which Katherine Barrell's character features quite prominently). That timing appears legitimate and separate from the original deletion discussion of the Katherine Barrell article. UvaSEP (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to apologize for accidentally delsorting this under academics, I meant to do so under actors and filmmakers. Everymorning (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Do not delete. Katherine Barrell has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject:

Learning to move on: actress Katherine Barrell on My Ex-Ex @ thetfs.ca
My Ex-Ex: Q&A with Katherine Barrell Career @ www.shedoesthecity.com
Burlington's Katherine Barrell stars in romantic comedy @ www.insidehalton.com
Wynonna Earp at SDCC 2016: Katherine Barrell and her role as Nicole Haught @ www.syfy.com
Katherine Barrell – Wynonna Earp – Starry Constellation Magazine @ starrymag.com
Exclusive Interview with “Wynonna Earp” Star Katherine Barrell @ talknerdywithus.com
Wynonna Earp's Katherine Barrell talks 'WayHaught' (Includes interview) @ www.digitaljournal.com
Interview with Wynonna Earp's Katherine Barrell @ fangirlish.com
Wynonna Earp: Interview: Katherine Barrell @ scifibulletin.com
Katherine Barrell On Wynonna's Nicole Haught and Waverly Earp @ www.scifitalk.com
WYNONNA EARP’s Katherine Barrell Talks TV’s Haughtest Couple @ ohsogray.com
Wynonna Earp - It's all about the WayHaught. Interview with Katherine Barrell @ www.spoilertv.com
Wynonna Earp’s Katherine Barrell Talks To 4YE About The Way Haught Romance And Fan Support @ www.4ye.co.uk
Wynonna Earp's Dominique Provost-Chalkley and Katherine Barrell @ www.themarysue.com
Dominique Provost-Chalkley and Katherine Barrell - The TV Junkies @ www.thetvjunkies.com
'Wynonna Earp' actors discuss LGBT representation at SDCC @ www.hypable.com
Tales of the Black Badge – A Wynonna Earp Fan Podcast #20 – Dominique Provost-Chalkley And Katherine Barrell (aka WayHaught) Interview @ tuningintoscifitv.com

Additional:

The last word – Katherine Barrell, B City Magazine, Fall 2015, p 56.
Katherine Barrell Talks Wynonna Earp Season Finale (June 24, 2016) @ www.scifivision.com

Besides web-based entertainment media, actors appearing in science fiction, fantasy, and supernatural television series receive coverage in media sources that cater to these genres. Her fan base is on the rise and her role in "Wynonna Earp" is being actively promoted by Syfy. In addition to acting credits, Barrell is an independent film director, producer, and writer. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The InsideHalton article looks especially useful, as that's a newspaper profile of her. Tabercil (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of those are blogs, primary sources or user-generated sources, which are classes of sourcing that Wikipedia policy explicitly rejects as not reliable or notability-assisting. The only one that even slightly counts for anything at all is Inside Halton, but that's a community weekly newspaper which is neither widely distributed enough, nor archived anywhere that we could retrieve the content if the website ever died — so it's also not a source that can aid passage of WP:GNG in and of itself. Get back to us when you can show coverage in major market daily newspapers on the order of the Toronto Star, the Calgary Herald or The New York Times, or magazines on the order of Entertainment Weekly — the sources you've listed here so far are not aiding your case. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Get back to us...." ??? What is your problem? You obviously don't seem to know very much about New Media that targets science fiction, fantasy, and supernatural genres. Breaking News...they're not going to be The New York Times or any cog in the wheel of old media. Perhaps WP needs to wake up and smell the 2016. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's rules about what constitutes reliable sourcing require (a) an established record of being a reputable source of information, and (b) that the content is archived somewhere so that if the website ever dies or prunes old content or otherwise disappears the web URL in question, the reference will still be a valid one because it will still be recoverable somewhere (the source's verifiability, in other words, has to be permanent.) If those rules bias our sourcing pool toward "cogs in the wheel of old media" and make it harder (not impossible, but harder) for a new media startup to clear the bar, then that's not our problem — websites can and do shut down and/or prune old content to clear server space, so it's a central rule that to count toward GNG, a source has to have some kind of "this source will always be accessible to us, even if we have to dig back into old microfilms again, regardless of what might happen to this particular web URL in the future" permanence, because the source is no longer verifiable otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) What makes you think the sources aren't reputable? Some of them are the same press representatives that participate in media press conferences for TV shows (you would know this if you were familiar with electronic media covering science fiction, fantasy, and supernatural genres); (2) "content is archived somewhere". All the sources referenced-above are archived. Editors such as I always make sure that citations for any WP article we edit are also archived. Have you heard of the Internet Archive? Check it out. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has specific objective rules to determine what makes a source reliable or not reliable, and every one of the sources under discussion in this subthread explicitly and objectively fails one or more of them. I am not making a personal judgement about whether I personally trust the source or not; I'm simply applying Wikipedia's established rules about the factors that determine whether a source counts as reliable and notability-conferring or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a Calgary Herald article and coverage from Toronto Film Scene. We now have coverage from Entertainment Weekly and Calgary Herald, both of which you suggested as examples of sources that are notability-assisting. This is in addition to the Collider article (which is owned by Complex Media), and a film magazine. These appear to be reputable, recoverable sources. UvaSEP (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check the references list before you add citations because the Calgary Herald article already existed as a referenced source. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do! UvaSEP (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Herald: still not about her, but merely contains a single glancing mention of her name in the process of not having her as its subject. You're not getting how this works at all — she has to be substantively the subject of a piece of reliable source coverage before it counts toward getting her over GNG, not merely have her existence namechecked in an article about something else. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then: the B City Magazine interview in the above list of sources qualifies. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Her existence is not merely namechecked in an article about something else. The Calgary Herald article is devoted to a show in which she is present, and portrays her as an integral part of said show, specifically mentioning the impact of her character within the LGBT community. Furthermore she is the subject of both the Toronto Film Scene article and the B City Magazine article, and is one of the primary subjects of the Collider article. In a similar fashion, she is one of the primary subjects of the Entertainment Weekly article, which also included her as a subject in their SDCC 2016 star portraits. These articles represent substantive, reliable source coverage of the subject. UvaSEP (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B City Magazine is a local-to-her-own-hometown blog hosted on WordPress, which means it is not a reliable or notability-conferring source — WordPress blogs, on which anybody can publish anything they want with no editorial oversight for accuracy or notability, are never valid sources for anything on Wikipedia. The Calgary Herald article is not substantively about her, but contains one single solitary mention of her name. Toronto Film Scene is also a blog; it falls close enough to the line between the kind of blogs we can accept for sourcing and the kind that we can't that it would be acceptable for some supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG had already been passed by stronger sources, but it does not count toward the establishment of whether GNG is passed or not. And an interview video clip, in which a person is effectively talking about herself, does not count toward the establishment of GNG either — things people say about themselves in interviews can be self-serving or hype-inflated or self-promotional in nature, where GNG requires that third parties are writing or broadcasting content about the topic in the third person. So just like community newspapers and the better classes of blogs, a Q&A-style interview, regardless of whether it's in video or print format, does not assist passage of GNG and may be used only for supplementary confirmation of stray facts after GNG has already been met. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"B City Magazine is a local-to-her-own-hometown blog hosted on WordPress". Not.the.source.I.posted. What I used is the PRINT edition of the magazine. Did you bother to look at the source I linked? Obviously, no. And since when is a local magazine or newspaper not an acceptable source? What do you think The Toronto Star is? You've got an axe to grind ... this is clear. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you won't accept reliable source coverage about her work, and won't accept interviews about her, what possible sourcing is left? Over 20 references have been provided, and yet you have rejected all of them. Such a bar is unreasonable. UvaSEP (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Do not delete While some of these sources do appear to be user-generated, others appear to be reliable secondary source coverage. The Digital Journal is a news service, and while some content is user generated, the article in question was written by a top editor of the site with 20+ years of experience. In a similar manner, the hypable article was written by an senior staff member with a Masters in Journalism. Richard Crouse's recognition of Barrell's short film Issues appears to be legitimate, as he is regarded as one of Canada's top film critics. Furthermore SyFy's coverage of Barrell's presence at SDCC 2016 appears to be a reliable secondary source, as does the Inside Halton newspaper article (I fail to see a distribution size requirement for news organizations). These sources in tandem support Katherine Barrell's status as an individual who has received significant coverage. UvaSEP (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User-generated sites are always automatically invalid sourcing for a Wikipedia article with no exceptions ever, so Digital Journal is a permanent non-starter. Hypable is also not a reliable source, for the same reason. Richard Crouse "recognized" her short film on his own blog, not in an article published in a newspaper — and his "recognition" consisted of acknowledging the film's existence in a "listings directory" manner, not writing anything substantive about it, so it helps nothing. And yes, GNG most certainly does place limits on what newspapers count toward satisfying it and what newspapers don't; major market dailies support notability, while community weeklies may be used only for verification of stray facts after an article has already gotten over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crouse's listing is the result of his curation of what he considered to be the best short films of 2013. In any case we are still left with at least two reliable secondary sources with SyFy's SDCC 2016 coverage and the Entertainment Weekly reference, with a newspaper article and Crouse's professional recognition as additional support. UvaSEP (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SyFy is the network her show is on, so it's a directly affiliated primary source which is not independent of her — the network has a vested interest in publicizing the cast members of its own shows. The newspaper article is still a community weekly newspaper that does not count toward GNG. And Crouse's "listing" is still just a glancing mention of her existence in a blog entry that isn't about her. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Entertainment Weekly ref added. Meets WP:GNG. Article could use expansion and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Entertainment Weekly reference is not about her; it just mentions her existence in a glancing manner alongside several of her other castmates, and fails to be substantive coverage with her as its subject. And it takes more than just one citation to one reliable source to pass GNG, especially when that one citation is as weak as that one is. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Entertainment Weekly reference is interviewing the cast in anticipation of Wynonna Earp's second season, in which she is presented in an equal manner. UvaSEP (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how "substantive coverage about her" works. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just public relations blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Collider reference added. UvaSEP (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources include in-depth here and in-depth here plus she's getting other roles besides Wynonna Earp such as this one. Meets the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All three of those sources have already been addressed above as to why they're not acceptable: Digital Journal = WP:USERG sites are never acceptable referencing under any circumstances; EW = not substantively about her, but just glancingly namechecks her existence. Inside Halton = community weekly newspaper, not widely distributed enough to count as GNG-conferring coverage. In terms of coverage that gets her over GNG, we're still sitting at zero here. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources work for me. I believe them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether you believe them or not. Wikipedia has objective rules about what's a reliable source and what isn't; WordPress blogs and user-generated content cannot and do not count as reliable sources regardless of what you think of them, and community weekly newspapers or glancing namechecks of a person's existence in an article that isn't about them do not aid passage of GNG but are permissible only for supplementary confirmation of stray facts after GNG has already been satisfied by other sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe the Toronto Star which wrote "a good effort from Katherine Barrell as lead character" even though it trashed the film My Ex-Ex. But if I believe in the Toronto Star, maybe that invalidates it as a reliable source for you?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again: not about her; it simply namechecks her existence in a blurb whose subject is the film — and that blurb is so short and non-substantive that it wouldn't even be able to carry the film over GNG, let alone its cast members. This is not the first time I have had to explain to you that just because a person's name appears in a reliable source does not automatically cover off the notability issue by itself — e.g. a person's existence being verifiable in a daily newspaper just because she once wrote a letter to the food columnist asking for a kale recipe does not in and of itself demonstrate her notability, as you once tried to argue that it did. Even in the Toronto Star, a piece of coverage has to be substantively about her, not just contain a single mention of her existence in an article about something else, to aid passage of GNG. In point of fact, we literally just within the past couple of weeks deleted an article about one of the other people named in that very blurb as one of her costars in that very film, because coverage substantively enough about him to satisfy GNG was not locatable and that blurb wouldn't have made a whit of difference. There is a big difference between being able to reliably source that a person exists — even I can be "referenced" to reliable sources as existing — and being able to reliably source that they have sufficient notability to belong in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, all considered, sources are sufficient for GNG, including this in-depth one. Further, according to WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.... So, I think you're over a Barrell.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Another thing: yes I know pageview counts are not an official measure, but over the seven years I've been contributing here, it is rare when an article with over 200+ pageviews a day gets deleted. It means there's a huge fan base -- people who will re-float the article if its deleted, like customers annoyed that their type of candy is no longer on the shelf.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mary Sue is yet another blog, still not a reliable or notability-conferring source. Honestly, I have nothing in particular against Katherine Barrell — but the quality and volume of sourcing that it takes for an actress to get a Wikipedia article just is not being shown. You can't just smother this discussion with more blogs. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mary Sue is not a blog but an online geek feminist culture magazine started by ABC TV host and legal affairs expert Dan Abrams, with seven editors; the publication is growing fast. As print media declines, Wikipedia will look to sources like The Mary Sue to a greater extent. In the context of this discussion, it is a reliable source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep In spite of the weaker references, the strength of mainstream news coverage combined with New Media puts this one over the top, not by much, but enough. I do not concur that a "single glancing mention of her name in the process of not having her as its subject" discounts the source. Montanabw^(talk) 03:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Montanabw writes, the sources aren't great, but they aren't negligible. The combination of the Burlington Post article, the Toronto Film Scene article, and the Digital Journal article suffice for me. They are not just name-drops, they are lengthy articles dedicated to the actress. Yes, the first is a local paper, and the second and third are digital only, but they're not just blogs. --GRuban (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Searchability redirects may be created by any editor. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The stadiums of professional teams which were defended by Oakshade are no consensus closures.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption Thonburi School Stadium

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

The subjects of these articles do not appear to meet the General notability guideline. I have looked through Google and Google News search results in the Thai language for each of the nominated stadiums here, and was not able to identify any in-depth mention by third-party reliable sources. Paul_012 (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - not seeing anything here that would meet WP:GEOFEAT let alone GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Institute of physical education Bangkok Campus Stadium and Institute of Physical Education Samut Sakhon Stadium as both are the home stadiums of professional teams, the latter being a Thai Premier League team and the former holds over 20,000 - such a stadium in the US or UK wouldn’t be considered for AfD (see WP:BIAS). EDIT: Also keep Coke-Jamrong Samerwong Stadium and Mahanakorn UNI Stadium as they house Premiere League teams. Neutral on the others. --Oakshade (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The stadiums for professional teams per Oakshade above. This includes the two he mentioned as well as a few others. Redirect The ones about semi-pro or amateur clubs to articles about the teams themselves where those exist as a plausible search term. Smartyllama (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gasthaus Gutenberger

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

The fact mentioned in the text that "nothing was announced on the news, the restaurant's website, or anywhere on the internet" should be a clue to the fact that this restaurant lacked notability while it was still functioning, even more so when it is closed. A mere 150 hits in Google, mostly lists and blogs, two book mentions (plain restaurant listings), five news mentions in five years (all in same local newspaper. No way this restaurant meets notability guidelines. T*U (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete uh yeah, nothing of substance here - David Gerard (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both the information and sources are essentially PR, nothing actually comes close to being genuine for trimming because it's all so unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly acceptable article for a restaurant. Being closed means absolutely nothing re notability as we are not a restaurant guide. Here is a very long and in-depth article in the Winnipeg Free Press, which is Winnipeg's main daily paper. That's more than many restaurants get, that have articles here. Here is a full length review, at Caio! Magazine, which appears to be slick and professional outfit. So there's your two in-depth notable reliable sources, so it meets WP:GNG right there and that's not including the briefer mentions at TripAdvisor and so forth. If you want to override WP:GNG you need better arguments than "nothing of substance" or "all so unacceptable" and so on.

Also this is not a promotional article and clearly is not the work of a PR flack (the article could stand some improvement though). PR operatives are seldom hired to represent defunct entities, you know. And while Google hits mean nothing, I got more than ten times the 150 claimed... is there anything correct in this nomination and the comments so far, I'm wondering... "local paper" for chrissakes, Winnipeg is sprawling metropolis with 663,617 (and that's just inside the city limits) and the Free Press was founded in 1872. Can we please not characterize it as if it's some small-town weekly?

I have now cleaned up the article, which (since this is not a WP:TNT situation), should not have had much bearing on the question of the article's existence, but perhaps it will now be acceptable? Herostratus (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: With all due respect, I resent the tone in your comments. You sweeping "is there anything correct in this nomination" is completely uncalled for. Please assume good faith.

Two points of clarification. First, Google hits: You are obviously not aware of a certain peculiarity in the hit counting in a Google search. When you make a search, you have to ignore the count number coming up on the first page of results, like here with 1890 hits. You have to look at the last page of results, like here with 155 hits.

Second, local newspaper: I have never suggested that Winnipeg Free Press is not a quality newspaper of standing. I am sure it is. My point was that the Google News search finds no coverage anywhere else than in this one local (=Winnipeg) paper. No coverage from non-local (=non-Winnipeg) papers, no coverage in any other local (=Winnipeg] paper. (I assume there are other newspapers in Winnipeg.) I could add that it does not even look as if Winnipeg Free Press found the closure of the restaurant worth mentioning, at least it does not turn up on the Google News search.

Having said this, I am glad that you have cleaned up the article. If the result should be "Keep", it is surely more acceptable than the original version. Very much so, good job! But my nomination stands. Regards! --T*U (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability even when the restaurant was open. The coverage is mostly local press which does not meet WP:AUD. A place of local notability, and that's it. Not sufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh, just to point out a few facts:

It's not a vote. To delete an article, there has to be some some sort of attempt, even if feeble, at policy-based argument. Otherwise policies mean nothing. I call on the closer to consider this.
The Winnipeg Free Press is not "local coverage" as meant by WP:AUD. This is not a matter of opinion but of fact. The Winnipeg Free Press is the broadsheet paper of record of Manitoba -- a place larger than Spain or the Ukraine and with a population of 1.2 million -- and its oldest and far and away its highest-circulation daily newspaper. It is a "local paper" if and only if one considers the New York Times to be a local paper for some city in New York State. This is not what is meant by "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation". It doesn't matter how hard you squint: WP:AUD was not intended to exclude very large metropolitan daily papers (which would mean excluding all but a small handful of newspapers worldwide, for all subjects), and I have never seen it taken this way, until now. It's completely outside the letter, spirit, and prior application of policy.
The article meets WP:GNG (and WP:CORP). This is not my opinion, but a fact. WP:GNG states

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention... [examples are then given] "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline... "Sources" should be secondary sources...

This is something that editors need to read and get up to speed on. Anyway, the article contains four references that, now matter how you squint or spin it, are "in depth" and "reliable" and "independent of the subject" and also in notable venues, if those English words have any meaning, so by definition it meets WP:GNG

I mean I guess you could answer the above by saying "no it doesn't". You could say "don't care, just not notable to me" or "the article is written in Spanish" or "it's just a blank page" or any other wrong thing. This would be only a slight step down from the arguments I have seen so far.

Now, we are not required to keep any article, even those that that obviously pass WP:GNG, if we don't want to. But for this article to be deleted we need an argument along the lines of "Yes, easily meets WP:GNG and WP:CORP but should be deleted anyway because _______", and the blank has to contain something beyond argument by assertion or "is defunct" (so is RJR Nabisco and Penn Central Railroad and the Mongol Empire etc.) or flat-out false statements or whatever. Have not seen any to this point. Herostratus (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The distribution range of an individual media outlet does not singlehandedly carry a topic over WP:AUD — the location of the publication vis-à-vis the location of the topic is where AUD comes into play. That is, a piece of coverage of a restaurant would pass AUD if it appears in a geographically-removed publication such as the Calgary Herald or the Toronto Star — but a newspaper published in the same town or city that the restaurant is located does in not pass AUD just because that paper also happens to have some secondary readership beyond the city limits. Because so does The New York Times, but that doesn't mean every hipster gourmet chip stand in Williamsburg gets to have a Wikipedia article the moment it's gotten reviewed in the NYT's food section — and so does the Toronto Star, but that doesn't mean I get a Wikipedia article just because I've been in it a couple of times for reasons of no substantively encyclopedic interest. AUD is passed if publications not based in Winnipeg think a restaurant in Winnipeg is of interest to their readership for some reason — it is not passed just because a newspaper which is based in Winnipeg, and is thus covering the topic in a purely local-interest context, happens to also ship some copies to Brandon and Thompson and The Pas. Bearcat (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This claims nothing that would make it a topic of any substantive or permanent encyclopedic interest, and cites no non-local coverage to pass the WP:AUD test (which, as noted above, is not passed just because a local publication happens to have some extralocal readership.) We could nearly always write an article like this about almost any restaurant that has ever existed in the world at all, if local coverage verifying inconsequential facts of no wider or enduring significance were all it took. A standalone non-chain local restaurant has to be significantly more notable than the norm in some genuinely substantive way to qualify for a Wikipedia article, because there are millions of such things in the world and they can't all be deemed notable just for existing. If this were Winnipeglocalpedia, I'd say keep. But it's not. If it were sourceable that there was anything distinctive or unique about it compared to other German-cuisine restaurants, I'd say keep. But there's no evidence of that being shown here at all. If it were sourceable as having something approaching national renown, I'd say keep. But nothing here demonstrates or sources that. Bearcat (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, we do cover quite a lot of subjects here. But we do not have to delete another article to make room for this one, or anything like that, so I'm not sure what you're so exercised about.

As to the rest, the Winnipeg Free Press is a regional, not a local paper, and as I said for a region larger than the Spain or Ukraine.

According to its article -- I recommend a read! -- it is distributed throughout Manitoba and is seen by ten percent of the population. The percentage of the adult population that reads the paper must be a good deal higher. This is actually quite remarkable. It's widely read throughout this large region!

Contrast Portage la Prairie. Although it's the fourth largest city in Manitoba, it's much smaller than Winnipeg. It has two weekly papers, Daily Graphic and the Herald Leader Press. Those are local papers as meant by WP:AUD.

The Winnipeg Free Press is a regional paper.

Can you see the difference?

If you want to lump the Winnipeg Free Press (and the LA Times and Boston Globe and all other large metropolitan dailies) in with the weekly Portage la Prairie Daily Graphic and local supermarket circulars and similar papers of that type and say "Well, all these are merely local papers. There's really no difference between any of them"... that's just silly. Of course they're different, very different.

Anyway, the reason it matters is that WP:AUD (which is not long) says "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.

See that? "regional media"! Not just an "indication of notability" but a "strong indication of notability"!

Anyway... I still can't see the article being deleted unless the closer wants to state "The Winnipeg Free Press is not regional media" and since that's not true I don't consider that likely. Herostratus (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one misinterpreting WP:AUD here, not me — AUD does not give some newspapers a pass as automatically more regional, automatically more able to magically GNG a purely local-interest hometown topic, than others are. The size of the geographic area that the newspaper is distributed in is not relevant to AUD at all — what matters to AUD is the geographic distance that the coverage source has from the topic.

Sure, there are absolutely contexts where Boston Globe or LA Times or Winnipeg Free Press coverage counts for more than the Portage la Prairie Herald Leader Press does — but getting a local non-chain restaurant of no enduring or encyclopedic significance over GNG just because local coverage exists is not one of those contexts. A restaurant in Winnipeg does not pass AUD just because the Winnipeg Free Press also has readership in Brandon and Thompson; it passes AUD only when newspapers in Saskatoon or Regina or Calgary or Vancouver or Toronto are starting to show that it's getting noted outside of Winnipeg. A restaurant in Boston does not pass AUD on the basis of Boston Globe coverage alone; it passes AUD when newspapers in New York City or Washington or Chicago are starting to show that it's getting famous beyond Boston. A chip stand in Williamsburg does not pass AUD just because it got one restaurant review in The New York Times, but if it starts getting coverage in the Boston Globe then that counts toward AUD.

"Local interest" does not automatically correspond to "suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia". If a topic cannot claim objective passage of a subject-specific notability criterion, but instead its notability relies on "GNG because media coverage exists", then at least some of the coverage does have to be coming from non-local papers. It doesn't matter whether the local paper's distribution area is the size of Ukraine, Spain, Portage la Prairie or the moon — if there isn't also some non-local coverage of the restaurant coming from papers not published in Winnipeg, then the restaurant has still failed AUD regardless of any claim you can make about how widely read the Winnipeg Free Press is or isn't beyond Winnipeg. Bearcat (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are defining "local" arbitrarily and idiosyncratically. You define Manitoba (again: bigger than Spain, as populous as Estonia) as a mere locality. Obviously by this standard we should cut our back our articles on Estonian history, geography, and culture by 90%. Why not "western Canada" as just a locality then. Why not "Canada" as just a locality. Should we have an article on William Henry Harrison? He's really only of local interest in one country out of 200+.

You're defining "local" arbitrarily to suit your particular desire to delete this article. Obviously you are not going to get lots of in-depth material on restaurants in Winnipeg in the Singapore papers and vice versa. That is the nature of restaurants. Unlike books, movies, people, and many other things, they are not portable. Therefore unlike books, movies, people, and many other things they are not easily accessible to people far distant from where they are located. Therefore it is not a good business model for the Singapore papers to write in great depth about many restaurants in Winnipeg (and vice versa).

So this is different from books written in Manitoba or record albums made in Manitoba. People in Singapore can obtain and use those! So the Singapore papers are more likely to write about them.

But so?

The culture of a great city and region has many aspects besides those which attract international notice. Sports teams, libraries, parks, schools, buildings, companies, and yes restaurants are part of this. If you wish to engage fully in helping the reader form a sense for the culture of a great city and region than you need to describe these things.

Category:Parks in Winnipeg has ten members. A quick reveals that all of these are either much less well referenced than Gasthaus Gutenberger, or also ref'd to so-called "local" sources, or both.

Do you want to empty out Category:Parks in Winnipeg? It's a simple yes or no question.

Assuming "yes", which I have to assume, shall we also delete all or most of our articles on schools and teams and so forth in Winnipeg -- and all other cities? Do you think we should have not 5,000,000 articles but maybe just 2,000,000? Or you do you have a particular and personal aversion to restaurants in particular? Maybe you had a bad experience in a restaurant or something, and if so I'm sorry, but what really does that have to with building an encyclopedia, which is what we are supposed to be trying to do here? Herostratus (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, you spectacularly miss my entire point. No, I am not "defining" all of Manitoba as a "locality" — the newspaper is published in Winnipeg, and the rest of Manitoba is a secondary distribution area. And the fact that restaurants aren't likely to garner a lot of coverage outside of their own local media is precisely the point: virtually every restaurant that has ever existed at all, anywhere on earth, could be sourced to some greater or lesser amount of local coverage, thus meaning that any restaurant in existence could always pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. But for the same reasons that we don't automatically deem every police department or fire department or public library branch in existence to automatically qualify for its own standalone article, every restaurant in existence can't be automatically notable either — for a restaurant to warrant a Wikipedia article, it needs to be significantly more notable than the norm, for some substantive reason that does make it a topic of "much wider than just Winnipeg alone" interest. No restaurant on the planet would ever fail GNG if purely local coverage in the local media were enough to make it permanently notable — but Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, not a local one, so things which are of primarily local interest, in classes of topic that are standard and routine features of every locality in existence rather than being distinctive in any substantive way, do require evidence of being more notable than the norm by virtue of gaining coverage beyond the local media.

Please also familiarize yourself with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Parks and restaurants are not necessarily equivalent topics that are subject to the same inclusion criteria — for example, parks can and often do have unique aspects to them, while that's at best rarely true of restaurants, and some of those park articles may very well be deletable as well if they're sourced as poorly as you claim and can't be improved. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not just any average restaurant. It's a notable restaurant. There's a thousand-word article in regional media (here). There's a 500-word article in regional media (here). There are two other articles in regional media which I can't see how long they are (paywall) but look to be several hundred words. This is in addition to several other smaller notices, and long reviews but in less important venues. The article meets WP:GNG and that is why we have GNG, so we know what is "presumed notable" and don't have hash it out on a case-by-case basis.

"Parks and restaurants are not necessarily equivalent topics that are subject to the same inclusion criteria" is news to me. Another person could make the point "just a patch of grass, they all look alike, delete" for parks. "Just another building, delete" and so forth. I got that last one on one of my articles: "Is this really an article about a single address on a street block? This should be flagged for deletion..." for 2 Rossi Street. For that guy it was buildings, for you it's restaurants, for another guy it's parks or sports teams: "I don't care to read about such things so no one else should be able to". Can you all take a bigger view please?

By your criteria, there is quite possibly not one single restaurant in Winnipeg on which we would have an article. By your criteria there are probably only a few hundred restaurants in the entire world on which we would have articles (most of those in very large cities, which of course would introduce that bias into our selection).

I get that you think "It's a restaurant. It's a large room where people perform a bodily function. They are all the same". You're not an epicure. But... food is important! There are shows about food. There are books about food -- lots of them! There are chef schools. It's a whole subculture! People talk about food -- they do! "Where shall we go for dinner" is asked a lot more than "do you prefer the Poetic Eddas or the Prose Eddas?". Most people consider the former question more pressing and are more likely to have an opinion on it. Sad (possibly) but true.

It might be that that people ought to eat at home more. It might be that people ought to spend their money and time on musical theater or science lectures rather than eating out. But its just a fact that people eat at restaurants a lot. They do! They care a lot about the difference between German and Thai and even among different German or Thai restaurants. Our job is to describe reality as it is found not as we think it should be.

Restaurants are important part of the culture of a great city, just as musical theater and science lectures are. I'm sure a lot of people would prefer we don't cover other low-brow popular-culture stuff comic books and rap music and ball teams. What can I say? We do. It's part of our mission.

Another person might say "OMG not another article about a pop album. They are all the same, just noise, so regardless of how much notice it got: delete". "Another article about a play? In other words some geeks yakking on a stage, same as every play. Delete". "Another so-called 'famous' general? All generals are interchangeable: they boss soldiers around. So? Delete." And so on.

Well we all don't like the same things. That's what makes a great encyclopedia. Herostratus (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fundamentally opposed to the concept of restaurants as a phenomenon, but that sure is a cute strawman. But every restaurant that exists at all cannot be inherently notable just because it and some local media coverage of it exist. What makes a restaurant notable enough to have an encyclopedia article is not "people in the city the restaurant was located in might care", or "the local newspaper covered it" — all local newspapers always cover local restaurants, so the existence of local coverage does not demonstrate that a restaurant is special somehow. We're not Restaurantpedia or foundlocally.com, and we can't confer an automatic notability pass on every restaurant that exists — there probably are only a few hundred restaurants in the world that actually warrant encyclopedia articles, whether you or I like that fact or not, because "restaurants whose existence is actually noteworthy for some genuinely encyclopedic reason" is a vastly smaller set than "all restaurants that exist". Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure, most restaurants don't merit articles. We agree that "restaurants whose existence is actually noteworthy for some genuinely encyclopedic reason" is a vastly smaller set than "all restaurants that exist". Most restaurants are either franchises (where there isn't enough variation to write about each one) or just grills or fast-food places or holes-in-the-wall (again, not enough culinary distinction) And these restaurants aren't usually going to have multiple major in-depth articles. Many other more gastronomically accomplished restaurants simply don't meet WP:GNG.

But a restaurant where there's a master chef preparing unique dishes from scratch including butchering his own cattle and what have you... that's a different matter provided there's enough unique about the place (only German restaurant in town!) or its long-lived enough, or whatever it has such that enough notice is attracted to pass the WP:GNG.

OK... you continue to use the phrase "local paper" and I guess you always will and you are simply unable to differentiate between a paper with a circulation of 140,000 (on Saturdays) and The Quoddy Tides with a circulation of 5,000 (every two weeks) and I suppose also the Los Angeles Times (Sunday circulation 950,000) -- they are just "local papers" to you, and WP:AUD is designed to nix them all re establishing notability of coverage of restaurants in Winnipeg or Los Angeles or Washington County, Maine (home of the Quoddy Tides).

Anyway... you think there are only a few hundred restaurants in the world that should have articles. Maybe there are only a few hundred poets in history that should have articles. Few hundred kings, few hundred actors, few hundred athletes, few hundred politicians. We can fit the whole deal in a couple dozen volumes and go head-to-head with Britannica. We'll need to tighten up WP:GNG quite a bit.

BTW the article could be expanded quite a bit. In the same way an article about a pianist might describe her technique, or about an athlete his statistics, or about a playwright his go-to character types and plots and so forth -- so could this article describe the cusine in more detail. We have the refs for it. I haven't done it because there's a paywall. I'll just leave you with the thought that there is such a thing as Culinary art. It's shot all through human history and culture. It's important and subtle. There's more to encyclopedic exposition of food and food-related entities than bangers and mash. Herostratus (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again: an individual paper's overall circulation numbers, or the geographic range of its distribution, are irrelevant to whether the coverage passes WP:AUD for the purposes of getting a topic that's subject to AUD restrictions over WP:GNG. What matters is the paper's location vis-à-vis the location of the topic, and nothing else. If a newspaper not published in Winnipeg is conferring coverage on a restaurant in Winnipeg, or if the Winnipeg Free Press is conferring coverage on a restaurant in Calgary or Saskatoon or Boston, then that counts toward AUD — but a newspaper published in Winnipeg covering a restaurant in Winnipeg does not satisfy AUD just because that newspaper is also distributed to Brandon and Portage la Prairie and Thompson.

If local coverage were all it took to satisfy AUD, we would have to keep an article about every individual parent teacher association, every local taxpayer activism committee, every church bake sale committee, every neighbourhood watch committee, every independent furniture store, every fire department, every police department, every social planning council, every local retail or service business that ever existed at all. But that's not sustainable, or encyclopedic — which is exactly why CORPs and ORGs are subject to the special burden of having to meet AUD over and above claiming GNG just because local sourcing exists.

And again with the illogical and invalid comparisons? Poets and musicians, for example, are also not topics where every one that exists at all automatically gets a Wikipedia article just because they got covered about in the local paper for local-interest distinctions like winning a high-school poetry contest — but they are topics where there are objective notability standards to determine when a poet or a musician crosses the line into notability. A poet, for example, can win or be nominated for a notable national literary award, or a musician can win or be nominated for a Grammy or a Juno — and as national-level awards that do generate nationalized media coverage, those are distinctions that do make a poet or a musician eligible for a Wikipedia article.

By comparison, "only German restaurant in its own city" is not in and of itself a reason why a restaurant gets an encyclopedia article — if it were the first or only German restaurant in all of Canada, then that might potentially count toward making it more notable than the norm, but we can't feasibly keep an article about everything that could ever claim to be the first or only exemplar of its class in one particular city. If it were owned and operated by a chef who was independently notable enough to have his or her own standalone BLP, then that would count as a valid notability claim. If it were recognized or famous enough that sources outside of Winnipeg were writing and publishing content about it, then that would count as a valid notability claim. But purely local sourcing which fails to demonstrate that the topic is of any wider interest beyond Winnipeg for any substantive reason is not enough to make a restaurant wikinotable by itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with all the above Deletes. This is just a local restaurant, with no indication of notability. There must be hundreds of thousands of such places worldwide, there needs to be more significance than 'it exists'. MB 22:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Boy, what a lot of sound and fury. Yes, the Winnipeg Free Press is a great paper but the coverage is from Winnipeg only. For WP:AUD to be met we'd need to see articles from other provinces or countries--which we do see for many nationally or internationally notable restos. We just don't see it here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bryant_H._McGill

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

This article does not appear to meet notability criteria for an author at WP:AUTHOR. Krychek (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 1 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) 21:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That could be the most fluffed-up Wikipedia bio I've seen. Has anyone abstracted out the cites to RSes that aren't passing mentions and aren't just articles by him? - David Gerard (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. Yes it's so bad I daresay WP:TNT could apply, unless anyone cared to hack this back. I sure don't. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I think the part that shows the character of this article is the "bibliography of published aphorisms." For those unaware, an aphorism is a short, terse saying. I have no way of figuring out if this unweildy list is correct, but "eat eggs not chicken" is an aphorism, and if I am the first one to say it, and 10 people quote in in their book, and 5 people include it in books that are compilations of aphorisms, it still does not make me notable. If "Eat eggs not chicken" got enough coverage as an aphorism that it merited an article, I am still not convinced that would be grounds to create an article on me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess as the nominator I should go ahead and vote, right? Also, I would not apply WP:TNT, as that would imply that the subject is notable enough for a "do over." I really don't think he is. Krychek (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no. Your "vote" is your nomination statement. An Afd nominator does not then enter another bolded !vote below. It's just not how it's done, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, thanks, I normally only nominate speedy deletes. Krychek (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Holy cow. 413 sources and not one of them attests to the subject's notability. Warning for editors attempting to bushwack through the reflist to find anything useful: almost every reference in that list is there to assert that a book exists, rather than to substantiate any facts about the article subject. A Train^talk 22:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 roughly 2:1 nose-count in favor of deletion, I found this one difficult to close. There's two different threads going on here, and it's not easy to tease them apart.

One thread is about whether the sources are good enough. There seems to be broad agreement that the first two sources are the best, and probably the only ones worth considering, so this thread really boils down to whether those two are sufficient. SmokeyJoe says they are. Hobit agrees, but with less enthusiasm.

The other is about whether this is overly promotional. DGG argues strongly that it is, and has a large chorus of followers in that opinion.

Where things get complicated is figuring out if the promotional aspects are inherent to the topic, or if they could be solved by editing (possibly WP:TNT, although nobody explicitly mentioned that). DGG writes, If a reliable editor wants to then rewrite it, it might possibly be notable. To which SmokeyJoe (correctly, in my opinion), points out that Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. But, he also says, I agree with DGG on the sources, they are not impressive with respect to significant coverage of the topic. I'm reading that statement as essentially being in the same camp as Hobit, which is to say that he feels the sources are adequate, but just barely.

I'm giving essentially zero weight to the first AfD. Partly because, as we all like to quote at each other, consensus can change. But also because the first AfD wasn't very well attended, and those people who did show up, didn't do a very good job of analyzing specific sources.

On balance, I think the delete camp has made a better argument than the keep camp.

Note: My previous involvement with this was closing a deletion review, six months ago. I had completely forgotten about that until I just perused the article history (after writing all of the above commentary). -- RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Head of Family Sokeship Council

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

Previously deleted as non-notable self-congratulatory organization. Recreated article looks different, but still lacks significant independent coverage. Lots of sources, but they're mainly quotes from members saying that the organization's members are the cream of the crop--hardly independent. The article on Sanchez was deleted previously and other articles are about people being honored, not the organization itself.Jakejr (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. "THE GATHERING OF EAGLES The World Head of Family Sokeship Council". No. November 2011. Combat Magazine. 31 October 2011. pp. 20–21. Retrieved 9 February 2016. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  The article notes:
  
  One common denominator that many grandmasters have is that they are members of an elite organization, that exists in the USA, the World Head of Family Sokeship Council (WHFSC).
  The WHFSC (aka the World Council) is a low profile union of some of the most famous martial arts masters in the world. It is the first American grandmaster's council, and is also one of the largest and most prestigious in existence today. There are no membership fees and application is by invitation or membership sponsorship only. The WHFSC now boasts a membership of over 250 grandmasters from all over the world. The main purpose of the WHFSC is to encourage communication between the different systems and to promote the growth of the martial arts. The Council was founded in 1992 by the internationally known and respected grandmaster of San-Jitsu, Frank E. Sanchez, a Jacksonville, Florida based martial artist orgiginally from Guam.
  Every year, master and grandmaster members meet in Orlando, Florida for the annual WHFSC meeting: the "gathering of the eagles." During this two day event, there is the grandmaster's annual meeting and dozens of training seminars that demonstrate many aspects of the martial arts.
  The publisher/editor in chief of Combat Magazine is Martial Arts Publications Ltd and Paul Clifton according to page 1 of the document, which also lists columnists and contributors.
2. Burk, Floyd (February 2016). "Frankly Speaking". 54 (2). Black Belt Magazine: 66–69. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  From https://www.facebook.com/BlackBeltMagazine/photos/a.104691875770.106622.63378970770/10153133035760771/:
  In the Feb/March 2016 issue of Black Belt, on sale now:
  San-jitsu founder Frank Sanchez has fought the establishment to spread Guam’s self-defense system and promote martial arts brotherhood. This is the story of the man and his brainchild, the World Head of Family Sokeship Council.
3. "Sokeship Council to Celebrate 10th Anniversary". Black Belt. 41 (8): 116. August 2003. Retrieved 17 February 2016.
  The article notes:
  
  ORLANDO, FL— The World Head of Family Sokeship Council will celebrate its 10th anniversary here August 29–30, 2003 with a seminar symposium and awards banquet. The council is composed of more than 100 martial arts masters from around the world, including Black Belt Hall of Fame members Wally Jay, Stephen K. Hayes and Ron Van Clief, as well as Seiyu Oyata, Ji Han Jae, Ronald Duncan, Emil Farkas, Adriano Emperado and other big names. The organization is the brainchild of san-jitsu founder Frank E. Sanchez, a native of Guam who now resides in Jacksonville, Florida.
4. Tullis, Matt (1 December 2004). "Local wins prestigious martial arts recognition". Star-News. Archived from the original on 17 February 2016. Retrieved 17 February 2016.
  The article notes:
  
  John Stover, founder of Stover's Martial Arts Academy on Carolina Beach Road, was recognized as Founder of the Year by the World Head of Family Sokeship Council, an organization that consists solely of ninth and tenth degree black belt grandmasters.
  ...
  The World Head of Family Sokeship Council was formed in 1993, making it the first grandmasters council formed in the United States. Its more than 160 members come from all over the world and specialize in every conceivable martial arts style and origin. The council grants membership only by invitation or sponsorship.
5. "Livesay inducted into Martial Arts Hall of Fame". The Oak Ridger. 29 September 2000. Archived from the original on 17 February 2016. Retrieved 17 February 2016.
  The article notes:
  
  Jack Livesay of Oak Ridge was recently inducted into the World Head of Family Sokeship Council's International Martial Arts Hall of Fame as Karate Man of the Year.
  The council is composed solely of 9th and 10th Dan grandmasters and their equivalents. The WHFSC is considered the most prestigious martial arts hall of fame.
6. Carroll, Frank (5 October 1997). "Ceremony Highlights Works Of Art". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 17 February 2016. Retrieved 17 February 2016.
  The article notes:
  
  Mike Sayoc and Chris Miller of St. Cloud, plus Kissimmee's Bill Ergle and Dr. Len Wilkerson last month, were among a hand-picked few the World Head of Family Sokeship Council selected for recognition. Grandmasters Jackie Chan, Royce Gracie, Jeff Speakman, Hatsumi and Don The Dragon Wilson are among the Council's ruling hierarchy.
7. "Karate expert, longtime law officer Long dies". Knoxville News Sentinel. 14 October 1998. Archived from the original on 17 February 2016. Retrieved 17 February 2016.
  The article notes:
  
  In 1995, the world's largest council of sanctioned heads of martial-arts systems, the World Head of Family Sokeship Council, inducted Mr. [Harold] Long into its Hall of Fame and presented him a Golden Life Achievement Award.
8. Lee, Hansen (24 September 1998). "Instructor Gets Kicks Teaching Martial Arts". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 17 February 2016. Retrieved 17 February 2016.
  The article notes:
  
  [Jeff] DeSantis' devotion to martial arts has brought him an array of honors and recognitions. In 1996, the World Head of Family Sokeship Council, the world's largest organization of grandmasters and heads of martial arts systems, inducted him into its hall of fame as instructor of the year.
  Only a few weeks ago, the council repeated the honor, this time picking DeSantis as one of only nine to be named master instructor.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow World Head of Family Sokeship Council to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 February 17#World Head of Family Sokeship Council participants: PRehse (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs), and DGG (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see neutral well-sourced coverage of a respectable and reputable organisation. While I see little direct coverage, I see sufficient coverage of what the council recognises, and that is strong attestation of notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DGG on the sources, they are not impressive with respect to significant coverage of the topic. However, I am uncomfortable with the line "If a reliable editor wants to then rewrite it, it might possibly be notable". Either the topic is notable, or it is not, and this does not depend on the current state of the article. WP:N states "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability". Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not voting yet but this is a classic walled garden organization reflected in the references. Many obscure martial artists whose only claim to fame is their membership. Declare yourself a soke and go search for legitimacy. The non-primary pieces directly about the organization are promotional in tone. So my gut says delete but I want to think about if the non-primary sources actually confer notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I'd say the sources are mostly borderline for an ORG. The first two sources Cunard lists are certainly the strongest, the others are mostly passing mentions. But I think those sources are barely above the bar (with the help of the distributed passing mentions...). Hobit (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as advertising, probably under G11 speedy. Notability doesn't really matter in such cases. Promotionalism is an equally good reason for deletion, because it violates WP:NOT. An accumulation of promotional references makes an advertisement, not an article At the time I declined the AfC, it had 3 references: 2 to a self published book, and the 3rd to a publication by a martial arts supply store. There are more now, but they are not any better: most are local stories about someone being admitted to the group, or the group holding an event. Such accounts are not reliable for the notability of the group because they normally include whatever the person written about chooses to say about the group, a group the general news reporter is not likely to have had any other information about--except whatever backgroun they gained from its own website. The inclusion of this battery of worthless sources shows the promotional nature of the article, and is grounds for deletion; if, as here, most of the references are such material, its grounds for deletion under G11, because it would take complete rewriting. If a reliable editor wants to then rewrite it, it might possibly be notable. The usable references are only the first two listed above. The third sounds plausible until you read it: it's a single paragraph. If the 10th anniversary of an organization merits only a single paragraph in a magazine about the sport, the organization is not likely to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as walled garden filled with puffery. I concur on its blatant G11ness and have tagged accordingly - David Gerard (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Better to let this AfD play out rather than tag for speedy deletion even if it is blatant G11.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the somewhat acceptable references are heavily promotional and don't speak to notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The best source is the Combat Magazine and most of it is quoting members about the quality of the organization's membership. The list of well known martial artists in one of the articles consists of those who have honorary memberships and they are not "among the Council's ruling hierarchy". Passing mentions don't provide the coverage needed to meet GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I first looked at the number of sources, I thought this article might be a keeper. However, closer examination of them leads me to believe that my vote in the original AfD was correct. Like other editors who voted for deletion, I don't believe that this organization has the significant independent coverage in reliable sources needed to meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; many of the sources offered in this AfD are PR or PR like, such as:

"ORLANDO, FL— The World Head of Family Sokeship Council will celebrate its 10th anniversary here August 29–30, 2003 with a seminar symposium and awards banquet." -- this is obviously a reprinted press release. Etc.

The content is advertorial and self-congratulatory; the amount of sources does not matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm going to boldly shutter this one a day early and just execute the redirect. This AfD is superfluous. A Train^talk 22:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of mergers and acquisitions by Amazon

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

Page is extremely similar to List of mergers and acquisitions by Amazon.com with less recent information. -- Jax 0677 (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for reasons given above. Topic already has an article dedicated to it. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there's any content that needs merging, but this should have been an easy redirect as an obvious search term/variation on the other page's title. No need for AFD at all. postdlf (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it doesn't seem like there's any content on this page that isn't on the other, in fact the opposite is probably true. The table format on this page is pretty nice and could probably be integrated tp the other page.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Reality Reborn

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

Not notable, PROD removed by creator. — Chevvin 03:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A7. The article doesn't assert importance about web content, much less notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:N. Not finding any coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some of the commentary on this AfD is grossly inappropriate, especially given that the subject is a BLP. Further, there are claims that the topic meets the WP:GNG but are proposing several different redirect options. Beyond that, this discussion has attracted only one detailed argument (by TheGracefulSlick) beyond the questionable commentary, thus I am going to close this as "no consensus" but with no prejudice against a quick renomination. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Mason

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

Minimal coverage for a subject that has not gained much attention for personal accomplishments. First link is the only source to specially mention him, while the rest are about a book, a news article that no longer exists, and two links about the college he attended. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to alpha phi alpha . Passes gng. 64.134.243.113 (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) 55.149.11.102 (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Umm I never made a mention of the subject being a black ("colored" is not appropriate terminology just saying) writer. Please strike your comment and consider writing something that will contribute to the Afd.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) 108.176.54.106 (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) 2607:FB90:2490:2C71:E2D1:CEFE:6F58:57F3 (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sorta WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input, even after two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Tielli

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable solo musician that has been a member of a number of bands. Fails WP:MUSIC Karst (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While this was prematurely withdrawn in the earlier discussion because passage of WP:NMUSIC was asserted, this misses the boat for a very important reason: NMUSIC does not confer notability just because its passage is claimed; it confers notability only if and when its passage is reliably sourced. The sourcing here, however, rests almost entirely on primary sources like Discogs.com and bands' own Bandcamps; the only source here that counts for anything toward getting a musician over the reliable sourcing hump is Exclaim!, and even that just namechecks his existence in the process of being about the band, and is not substantive enough to support him having a separate article from the band as a standalone topic (and even the band is actually vulnerable to deletion under the tighter NMUSIC rules that pertain today, so just redirecting him there isn't a solution.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ignoring the two WP:SPAs (who, I'm virtually certain are socks), there's unanimous consensus that this doesn't belong in mainspace. Given the obvious SPA/socking/COI that's going on, delete seems the simplist and most appropriate of the various possibilities mentioned. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajith Nair

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

No indication of notability. No inline citations. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 04:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 04:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 04:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move out of article space -> AFC - Article now seems to have inline citations which hopefully establish baseline notability for the article's subject. That said, article needs a lot of work but nothing I see justifies deletion. FelisLeo^Talk! 10:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are however, WP:COI issues. I received an e-mail from the main editor stating he is the "PR guy" of the article's subject and needs to maintain the article. He was basically asking for help, I am not sure if there is a 'good way' for PR guys to contribute to an article, only thing I can think of is Articles for Creation. Think getting other editors involved combined with the addition of inline citations can save the article. FelisLeo^Talk! 08:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has strong inline citationBrayden Gregg (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - Inline citations active, shows notability Brayden Gregg (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)struck double !vote. Anup [Talk] 06:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is have inline citations establishing notability. Renjishcs (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nilavu - Subject does not meet the notability standard; neither wp:gng nor wp:director. AFC cannot establish the notability of subject, therefore doesn't seem to me a viable option. There are about 3 or at most 4 sources, and all of them are about Nilavu movie with almost same contents, in which he managed to secure passing mentions being director of the film. He may meet the Wikipedia's inclusion criteria in future. If and when that happens one is free to turn the redirect into article.

There is nothing to lose, and all sourced information on him are probably already covered in Nilavu article. Anup [Talk] 05:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appsgeyser

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

Very little evidence this meets WP:PRODUCT. Created as a sloppy promotional article, tagged as advertisement since 2013 without anyone coming along to fix it in three years. A few minor third-party sources from around its launch in 2011, but checking Google News shows nothing beyond those other than press releases nobody bit on. David Gerard (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sorta WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sofiyum

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

Delete Poorly sourced and advertorially toned article about a band with no strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC. The "sources" here are a press release and two dead links whose content it's impossible to verify, all three on government websites rather than in real reliable source media -- and the article is so slathered in advertorial that it's impossible to suss out anything objective that might constitute an actual notability claim at all. As always, a band is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they exist, but nothing here is enough to earn one. Bearcat (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; nothing but advertorial content and no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield Mod Development Toolkit

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

does not seem to meet WP:GNG Prisencolin (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTE. This can be a footnote on the respective pages of the games it's in.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent notability from the individual games in the article, per its lack of sources, and not a worthwhile redirect title. czar 05:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 link list provided by Adam evidently didn't convince anyone else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITriage

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

Substub with only 1 source. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom (though may well be a G11 A7) - David Gerard (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this software. Dialectric (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't look hard enough then. I found plenty. Adam9007 (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Directory, press release, PR reprint, PR reprint, RS, maybe-RS, directory, RS-ish review, not an RS review, RS review ... I'm not convinced. This is the only one that looks like editorially-reviewed coverage about the company - David Gerard (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete note suitable for an encyclopedia , 6 sept 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.167.49 (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under criterion A7. Criterion G11 might also have applied, but A7 was obvious. This really never needed to go to AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bandar Jakarta

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

Non-English substub. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7 and G11. The page was already tagged with CSD tags, an AfD is not needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 05:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Love

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

Local voice actor. I'm not seeing any secondary source coverage, not even in Houston papers, for him to meet WP:GNG. He appeared in four anime conventions, and that's about it? He stars in My Love Story. Too soon to have a page? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Few/No secondary sources, but lots of roles on ANN. Has anyone broke down if these are major enough for the article to be fine? Esw01407 (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay checking: My Love Story he's the lead character. Log Horizon he plays a starring character Naotsugu (listed 2nd overall on the list). Sunday Without God he is listed 2nd so that would count as a male lead. Hakkenen he's listed 4th in the main character list. Arcana Famiglia he's in the main ensemble as 7th on the list. Clannad he's a supporting character (heroine character's father). Upotte he's way down on the character list / supporting. Chaika he's a regular supporting as Nikolai. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of these, maybe Clannad has some notability, but none of these shows have made it onto broadcast television on the English dub side, so they're mainly broadcast dubs (web series) or direct-to-video. Maybe they'll appear on Netflix? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO. The subject is an unremarkable voice actor; this is a vanity page at best. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Leonardo (Sandton)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Clear example of WP:CRYSTAL, as you can see from the image as well. The building claims it will be the largest in SA, however it hasn't even begun construction plus it's only covered in two minor sources which do not attest its notability given they're mere speculation. The price of the penthouse seems to be the main focus of those two references, however it is an "expected" price, so again I invoke WP:CRYSTAL. I also suggest salting per this. See also Acsiopolis (same developer trying to push an agenda). FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 11:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Promotional and lacks notability. My searches do not reveal enough coverage to meet GNG. The article appears to exist as a WP:PROMO to attract potential buyers; even expected prices are listed. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reliable, third party sources such as Business Day Live and Financial Mail have been cited; thus noteworthiness is clear. The article simply provides facts which are backed up with citations so I don't see how the page is "promotional" in nature. --Nazeer (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're aware of what Wikipedia considers "noteworthy". Our most central guideline is the general notability guideline, which this simply does not pass. Two mentions about a future construction do not constitute extensive coverage. This does not preclude the possibility of having an article about the building once it's built and it's garnered substantial coverage in the future. As it stands now, we're not even certain it even will get built. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems like even factoring in the sources and searches in the Farsi language, there is not enough to establish notability. Having pages on other projects does not add to notability, alas. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva Moghanloo

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

No real indication of significance. Claims to have received "critical acclaim" but no sources to back that up. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Has an entry in Persian Wikipedia. --2607:FB90:689:A5AA:6040:F50F:13C2:AAFB (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well I don't read Persian but the article there is about 2 lines... And that doesn't mean it is notable... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Terrible citation style, but actual sources. Margalob (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete: Persian wikipedia article is fa:شیوا_مقانلو (awful robotranslation). She has had some success as a translator, with evidence of shortlisting for a translation here. That, however, does not meet WP:ANYBIO#1, and maybe wouldn't even if she had won. Nor does she appear to meet WP:CREATIVE yet based on available sources. She has quite a few GNews hits but (a sample of) these do not appear to pass the bar for WP:GNG (when robotranslated). WP:CREATIVE is probably the easiest to establish —- what articles (etc) are there which focus qualitatively on her work as a translator and/or editor, etc.? (Edit: It doesn't look like she passes WP:ACADEMIC). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I looked up the person's Persian name on google and didn't find that much.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well played

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

This sliver of an article seems to fall pretty short of WP:GNG requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and speedy per WP:NEO / GNG. Widefox; talk 19:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. It's an actual phrase that appears to be in common use (though not video game-specific as the article claims) but this isn't the place for it. Smartyllama (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Delete as the current Wiktionary article on the topic is sufficient. Smartyllama (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is such a common phrase really not already there? Sergecross73 msg me 16:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't transwiki. I created the Wiktionary entry with proper format: wikt:well played. Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "well played means that something was played well". Come on. Let me quote another popular phrase: "and nothing of value was lost". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should have been deleted on site. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Sergecross73 msg me 16:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at first, i thought this was a game. #WellPlayed--☭🎆🌎🎼🎺🐦 05:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). —Mythdon 23:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Wedding (play)

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

There is nothing in this unsourced article that indicates this play is notable. I find it fascinating that one of the actors in one of the productions is the Duchess of Cambridge. Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete there's a bit of coverage by the New York Times, but significant coverage is needed, and frankly I'm not seeing it. I can however see some regional level reviews, so this could swing either way. I can't seem to find an explicit notability guideline for plays, so going by GNG and the similar NFILM, reviews by national level media organisations are needed, and as said I can't find any bar the NY Times. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'd suggest the tag for sources is enough. A play that's had that many different productions with different casts ought to prevent a deletion for the time being. • DP • ^{huh?} 16:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Burliuk, Greg (2008-12-06). "Perfect Wedding: Bride and gloom". Kingston Whig-Standard. Archived from the original on 2016-09-09. Retrieved 2016-09-09.
  The article notes:
  
  So, you wake up on the morning of your wedding and can't fig-u re out how that pretty stranger ended up lying beside you. You know things can only go downhill from there, right?
  Is there a way for a play built on that premise to be funny? Well, yes, but only under special circumstances, few of which are present in Domino Theatre's production of Perfect Wedding.
  The play was written by British playwright and actor Robin Hawdon in 1994, and it appears to be an attempt to update the British bedroom farce. I say appears because a typical bedroom farce has lots of slammed doors and people dashing from room to room.
  Perfect Weddingdoesn't have these staples. Maybe the playwright thought all that stuff was too obvious. Mind you, he borrows the bedroom farce tool of mistaken identities in a bid to enhance laughter. Too bad he also didn't borrow the slew of one-liners and double-entendres that are the bedroom farce's stock in trade.
2. Lindsay, Tedrin Blair (2014-05-09). "Review: Studio Players makes the most from imperfect 'Wedding'". Lexington Herald-Leader. Archived from the original on 2016-09-09. Retrieved 2016-09-09.
3. Wright, Mary Ellen (2016-06-26). "Theater review: Rainbow's 'Perfect Wedding' a goofy romp in the pre-bridal suite". LNP Media Group. Archived from the original on 2016-09-09. Retrieved 2016-09-09.
4. Holahan, Jane (2016-06-03). "Be warned: Nothing's perfect in Rainbow's 'Perfect Wedding'". LNP Media Group. Archived from the original on 2016-09-09. Retrieved 2016-09-09.
5. Pearce, Daniel R. (2016-07-20). "Perfect Wedding mix of farce, love story". The Simcoe Reformer. Archived from the original on 2016-09-09. Retrieved 2016-09-09.
6. Churnin, Nancy (2016-04-10). "Theatre Britain's 'Perfect Wedding' a perfect cure for the grumps". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2016-09-09. Retrieved 2016-09-09.
7. Poster, Leslie (2014-04-16). "Big Day Goes Awry in Farce 'Perfect Wedding,' Put On by McLean Players". Falls Church News-Press. Archived from the original on 2016-09-09. Retrieved 2016-09-09.
8. Gillespie, Tyler (2014-03-25). "Review: Perfect Wedding". Gambit. Archived from the original on 2016-09-09. Retrieved 2016-09-09.
9. Keill, Liz (2009-11-16). "'Perfect Wedding' a perfect romp at Bickford Theater, Morristown". NJ.com. Archived from the original on 2016-09-09. Retrieved 2016-09-09.
10. Genzlinger, Neil (2009-07-20). "Roll Over, Honey. Uh, Where's My Fiancée? Perfect Wedding. Off Broadway". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-09. Retrieved 2016-09-09.
11. Billings, Jeanette (2012-08-18). "'Perfect Wedding' is perfectly hilarious". Longboat Key News. Archived from the original on 2016-09-09. Retrieved 2016-09-09.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Perfect Wedding to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Glossary of video game terms. The term not deserving its own article was fairly WP:SNOW, and a merge to the glossary was brought up. It's seemingly standard for terms like this to be simply merged to that list. There was a single source to be found to credibly define the term. I used its definition for the description at the glossary. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Splash damage

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

tons of WP:OR, doubt this should have a stand alone article Prisencolin (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Glossary of video game terms.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Don't usually close on 2 however participation's been low and sources have been provided which the nom doesn't seem to have an issue with so closing as Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Duran

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

Non-notable, only 2 sources, possible promo. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plantlady223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a work in progress and I am not affiliated with this person in any way. I'm working on adding better sources. This athlete is a notable competitor in American Ninja season 8, and is one of the first women to be able to complete the 14-1/2 foot warped wall.

~Plantlady223 (please feel free to edit my talk page!!)

I just commented in another discussion that nominating an article seven minutes after creation is disruptive. This one, from the same nominator, happened after five minutes, so is even more disruptive. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed it's disruptive. (even though you're reading a guy who honks a split second after the light turns green).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why wait till after it turns green? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG. Sources include in-depth here and in-depth here and in-depth here. Interesting person.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clear keep per GNG: @KATMAKROFAN: I would have to agree with the discussion here -- please hold a little bit more restraint on pushing content to AFD. Sadads (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.shubh ex patel

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

Unsourced autobiography. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, eligible for CSD A7: The article text makes no claim to notability. @KATMAKROFAN: there is no apparent need for this to come to AfD for discussion as it fits the CSD A7 criteria. AllyD (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied A7. Peridon (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hebron church gudiyatham

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

Unsourced substub. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Yamaguchi先生 under criteria A7 and G1.(non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charile walker

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

Substub, unsourced, non-notable. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete or Userfy This didn't need to come to AfD. It's obviously a new user creating a page in error and could be userfied, or speedy deleted under CSD A7. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can still tag an article for speedy deletion, as I have done, even if it has been taken to AfD. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I have suggested to the creator that such content might be suited to the user page. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#G4. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hitesh Chauhan

AfDs for this article:

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

Stub, unsourced BLP, non-notable. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (CSD G4): The content of the new article does not address the points discussed in the December 2015 AfD which concluded with deletion as non-notable. AllyD (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tito Da.Fire

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

Unsourced BLP, promotional, non-notable. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional and WP:A7. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emotibyte

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

Dicdef, may not meet Wiktionary standards either. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a WP:NEOLOGISM and made up term per CSD A11. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet Wiktionary's WT:CFI. Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lyricists pretty frequently take creative liberties with language. It takes a lot more than that to make the neologism itself a notable subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Jensen

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

Unsourced stub. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is without any sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unsourced BLP of minor - David Gerard (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek anand

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

Unsourced BLP, substub. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article literally only contains the subjects name in the text, and the info box does not give any indications of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Could've been speedied as WP:CSD#A3 and WP:CSD#A7. Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jannie McInnes

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a music video producer, whose only evident claim of notability under WP:CREATIVE is that she exists and has done work. Further, this is sourced solely to a single 29-word blurb about her in a "business announcements" column that also contains similar blurbs about at least 25 other people and at least five companies, so the coverage here isn't substantive enough to get her over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had tagged the article with the {{notability}} tag in the hopes that the creator might address the issue, but apparently no improvement was forthcoming. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable music video producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Milan Yadav

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

There are a number of problems with this entry. The single reference has a passing mention to the subject about presumably (the entry is vague) a Commonwealth Games gold medal which I would consider notable. However, the medal listing in 1982 Commonwealth Games lists others and although people sometimes are known but other names I can find no evidence that is the case or another that lists him as a medal winner to confirm. In addition there is a claim of 4th place in the 1980 World Championship which did not occur. What remains does not confer notability and I must say since they are also unsupported that everything is suspect.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I checked each and every Indian Commonwealth Games medallist till date – results are available under the 'EVENT' label of the United World Wrestling's database. But I still couldn't find his name. Even searching different combination of his name at the database didn't fetch anything. So, it seems a hoax. BTW, only similar name that I could find was Ramniwas Yadav, who finished fourth in the 1994 World Cadet Championships. - NitinMlk (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know if it's a hoax, but his notability is suspect. I don't know what "1980 world championship" he finished 4th in, but it wasn't FILA since they don't hold world championships during Olympic years. There doesn't appear to have any supporting evidence to show he meets WP:NSPORTS and there's a lack of coverage that supports a claim of him meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Lourdes 04:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bommanahalli

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

Notability Tylr00 (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Bommanahalli Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bommanahalli[reply]

Speedy Keep - Nonsensical non-sequitur one-word deletion rational. What exactly makes this not of "Notability"? Looks like a real place, [4], referred to as such in the press, [5] and the census.[6] --Oakshade (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable means being worthy of attention or notice; remarkable. Reading this article, this does not appear to be satisfied Tylr00 (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00[reply]
Under this logic, a real place is pretty vague, as a street corner and a bus stop are real places. As far as being in the press, it appears in this article that the only noteworthy press refers to the office buildings in which the local people work. I don't know that every census-designated place is noteworthy, either. Tylr00 (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00[reply]

Keep The matter concerns Greater Bangalore. BBMP is the city government. The BBMP managed area is divided into ten zones, which have their own administrative bodies as well ("joint commissioner" being the mini-mayor of the zone). Ours is one of the zones. There already existed an article for each of the zones except for one. There is also plenty of coverage of all of the zones. Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has existed for 10 years, and nothing notable has been added to it in this time. Tylr00 (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00[reply]
  - It's a populated, legally recognized place as per WP:GEOLAND. This category out of all has the most minimal of requirements to be fit as an article, and our article exceeds that little limit by far. I've seen tiny villages inhabited by 30 people and only verified by fringe travel blogs and long-forgotten, dusty thousands-listing government registeries be preserved at AfD. Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to the link you provided, places defined for the purpose of taking a census are not notable. It goes on to say that notable places are not defined by population, but by the richness of their history. Tylr00 (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00[reply]

Further reason to delete. According to Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Tylr00 (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00[reply]

You already nominated which is counted as a delete vote, so I instruct you to strikethrough or remove your boldened vote... And this zone isn't for "taking a census". This is a smaller administrative ward with its own administrators. On top of that it's also a specific suburb known to the people as shown by the articles. The general notability guideline is the general notability guideline like it says. In practice things can be different when it comes to locations. Even on top of that we've already covered the general notability guideline with the articles... Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed my the boldened delete from my comment as etiquette to the discussion, but remember that the votes are not counted quantitatively, but qualitatively. This article was created in 2006 and still does not convey anything notable about the subject, and as such has not established notability Tylr00 (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00[reply]

That's what I would tell you after you inserted the second vote. And there again are the articles which can be used to expand the article, like with the many mentions of the lakes nearby. Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is opportunity for information on the region on a boarder page, such as the BBMP or similar Tylr00 (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00[reply]

No, just... How about you just read this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal). Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns and it seems to me that you are passionate for this area, but the article is not useful to users of Wikipedia. As such, I have nominated it for deletion Tylr00 (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00[reply]

Keep. A suburb with population of more than 200,000. Also this is eligible for "Speedy Keep" as there is no deletion rationale provided. --do ncr am 04:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable place indeed. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 12:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Easily satisfies WP:GEOLAND and incomplete explanation in nomination. Smartyllama (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as being created by a blocked user - if any of the other contributors wish me to undelete it so the AfD can go forward I will, but I've assumed that they'd be ok with a G5.. Doug Weller talk 20:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Balloons (2016)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gubbaare

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

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

non notable film. Originally created as Gubbaare and nominated for deletion at WP:Articles for deletion/Gubbaare. Original author requested deletion and then this appeared. noq (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability per GNG and NF. The only coverage worth mentioning appears to be the Hip in Pakistan piece, which, even if reliable and independent, is not nearly enough. None of the NFO criteria appear to apply either. Rebb ing 15:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, needs independent sources but has none, same as last time. - MrOllie (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no secondary sources. The "accolades" section could save it, but seems very dubious, claiming to have won awards at many small film festivals in 2016 but cautioning that "film festivals take time to announce their results, the film has been attributed the following titles so far" and offering no sources for this. Checking the awards websites so far as is possible, the 2016 Prescott Film Festival doesn't appear to mention Balloons anywhere (nor as Gubbaare), and the Holly Shorts Festival neither mentions the film nor has an "audience choice" category. The UFO Kurz Film Festival (which the article claims Balloons won "best film" at) hasn't even closed submissions for 2016 yet. --McGeddon (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had taken the same approach as McGeddon above; DC Shorts Film Festival, in which this purportedly won best storytelling, does not mention this film. Similarly, the LASA Film Festival, in which this purportedly won best film (audience choice), does not mention this film. Wish thinking at best, hoax at worst - either way, the claims are nonsense and the entire article suspect. Эlcobbola _talk 16:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and cut the awards section entirely per further discussion at Talk:Balloons_(2016)#Dubious awards, as it seems to have no basis in reality and nobody has been able to confirm a single award as having been given. --McGeddon (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a piece of WP:SELFPROMOTION. MarnetteD|Talk 17:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just confirming it's self-promotion by multiple socks. Doug Weller talk 20:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Lourdes 03:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment proposal against Michel Temer

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

So far, nothing has actually happened, and there's no telling if something will really happen with this. It is routinary for huge numbers of bill proposals to get lost in the internal bureaucracy of a national Congress and never get it to an actual vote of the legislators, much less get sanctioned as laws. Do not confuse with the Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff that made Temer the current president of Brazil, which is a completely different thing (as it happened, and was approved). Cambalachero (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

Factual: the outcome of an impeachment proposal is irrelevant; the proposal(s) exists.
Notable: Temer is the President of Brazil, not interim president. Past, present, or future impeachment proposals/investigations are of interest to WP, perhaps more so now.
Sourced: the article is decently sourced. O Globo and the BBC are reliable news sources. Prburley (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

I, respecfully, propose that the Portuguese version should be deleted first. Since you, Cambalachero , speak Portuguese, why not go direct to the source and try to propose the delectation there. If accepted there, where Mr. Temer is known, and the editors are familiar with the process, your argument here will be taken as a serious proposal. Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 16:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Existence. The mere existence of a bill proposal does not mean that it will actually make it to the chambers and be discussed and voted. That's not the way Congresses work. If all the comitee work is done and the Congress of Brazil actually comes to vote for the impeachment of Temer, then it may be noteworthy. Nowadays, it's just a proposal like many others, and there is no guarantee that it will ever see the green light.

Also, I do not speak Portuguese, I can't read their article. Is this article outdated, is the impeachment in a more advanced stage than reported here? If so, please elaborate. Also have in mind Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Wikipedias in other languages. Cambalachero (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Google Translate handles Portuguese surprisingly well. This timeline will help you out, which is also at the bottom of the Portuguese-language article: Linha de tempo do processo de impeachment de Michel Temer (Timeline of Michel Temer impeachment process). Good luck! Prburley (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Prburley's arguments above. This is a no brainer. giso6150 (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prburley's arguments above. This is a no brainer. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an important proposal, with enough sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As noted below, the sources added do not seem to be significant enough to create notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yanis Rahmani

(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) 14:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete - several reference were added from notable sources Athletic Bilbao official web site and MARCA newspaper. karimneo 1:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete - the two references mentioned above are just routine and not enough to pass WP:GNG; you would expect Athletic Bilbao to occasionally do articles on its own players; besides the source is not an independent one. Spiderone 12:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL and has done nothing to pass WP:GNG. --SuperJew (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Absent any opposition to the previous two keep assertions. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ria Antoniou

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

Antoniou has never won a national or international beauty pageant at a level that would make her notable. Her modeling roles are not substantial enough to pass notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If found to not be independently notable, redirect to Miss Earth 2008 as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 03:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject meets the WP:GNG with lots of sources such as this in-depth and this in-depth.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Grand Prix Runners-Up

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

Nonstandard article (i.e. we don't maintain lists of runners-up in any other Grand Prix races), more suited to a specialist Formula One site than a general purpose encyclopedia like Wikipedia, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. PROD was removed by article creator without explanation. DH85868993 (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sweet Jesus, please delete. Someone has definitely not understood the basic principles of this project (Hi folks...). Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just a trivial article. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Article is entirely not appropriate for the encyclopaedia. MWright96 (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you're interested who was second in a Grand Prix, go look up the results on the individual article. This list is the very definition of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. QueenCake (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopaedic trivia. Eagleash (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delere. It's trivia which isn't even complete. I'm not sure the term runner-up is even used in Formula One. Clearly not suitable for Wikipedia. T v x1 19:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delere; Importance of this article beyond trivia has not been indicated. --Falcadore (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per A7. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global Urban History

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

Non-notable term/field which seems to have only been studied by the group who coined it. It is currently only sourced by the group's own website and blog. I can find no independent, reliable sources discussing the subject. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If kept it certainly shouldn't be title cased: it's not a proper noun. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM. Joe Roe (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. It's still too much of a niche study. Created by SPA Ezequiel33, this group from Berlin has been pushing their work on the blog, twitter, facebook, etc. and it looks like Wikipedia was another stop on the social media promotion tour. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A7 and WP:A11, author previously removed CSD template A7 yesterday and was warned for such. Placed templates and made notification. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 07:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowkeep. Per previous consensus notability is established by being listed on the NRHP. See also WP:GEOFEAT. De728631 (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beal-Gaillard House

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

Not very notable Wasabi,the,one (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places is usually considered to be evidence of notability. Is there any reason why this should be an exception? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the longstanding consensus that buildings listed on the NRHP are notable. And coverage of this house in other books can also be seen by clicking "books" in the find sources link above.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOFEAT and Arxiloxos. Also see WP:NPLACE. clpo13_(talk) 23:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nom needs to do better than "not very notable" as being a HRHP designate means there is in-depth description, history and significance coverage as all NRHPs have such. --Oakshade (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - without words Agathoclea (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this looks notable to me in the geographical context. Such a building wouldn't necessarily be notable in a western European country where listed buildings tend to be older, but this looks to be historically significant. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By !voting keep here I can help my AfD score. I tilted at a windmill a while back and nominated something for deletion that turned into snow keep so this freebie will make up for that. Subject is notable per WP:GEOFEAT. New editors should spend more time at countervandalism and less time at AfD if they don't know notability criteria. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW, noting obvious sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

PromptCloud

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

The company fails WP:CORPDEPTH and in fact I tagged this as A7/G11. My tag was removed multiple times by User:Jacobkoshy333 who very clearly has a conflict of interest. The references in the article are not reliable sources at all and I am unable to find enough reliable sources to convince me that the company is notable. Btw, this is an undisclosed paid editing case. See User_talk:Umais_Bin_Sajjad. I'm also feel User:Fahadmonibsiddiqui and User:Raj Bipin Bhatt have a COI here considering their attempts to "save" this article. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, according to you Lemongirl942, whoever edits the article or tries to counter your deletion nominations have a conflict of interest? Please stop blaming everyone who counters you as COI. Humble request. I am just trying to help a credible enough article to get justice. Thank you. Raj Bipin Bhatt (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)— Raj Bipin Bhatt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).[reply]

Special:Contributions/Raj Bipin Bhatt. It's apparent that you have a COI here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lemongirl942. Similarly, this goes for you too(because I see you deliberately & aggresively trying to delete this page). And as you see, I have recently joined Wikipedia, so my special contributions will increase by time. Raj Bipin Bhatt (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)— Raj Bipin Bhatt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).[reply]

No COI at allThe only intention behind my attempt to save this page is that I do what I honestly believe is right. I believe this page qualifies wikipedia's notability criteria and should not be deleted. The only conflict of interest I have with this is that this was my first attempt at creating a wikipedia page. I am glad that someone else has succeeded in creating this page. Now that I see some people trying to get the page deleted aggressively on baseless grounds, I had to react. I also think that conflict of interest goes both ways, If you say I am trying to save this page with a COI, you are trying to get this deleted with a COI. Hope I am clear on this Lemongirl942 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobkoshy333 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC) — Jacobkoshy333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).[reply]

Dear Lemongirl942, I appreciate your honest concern, and I also understand that we are all here to make Wikipedia an authentic destination to learn. I am a marketer by profession; however I truly follow the ethics when it comes to situations' as this one, and I would like to say that I have no COI for editing this page. I am also associated with Encyclopedia Britannica, which was the Google and Wikipedia from last 200 years, now they are digitising their content to get into business. I have benefited a lot from Wikipedia as any other visitor' who stumbles-upon the platform while researching for a query, mostly from Google, 65% to be closely precise. Despite being a frequent visitor, I did not contribute ever until I got interested in the concept of Crowd Sourcing, and realised my responsibility towards the community, I also want to be a part of WikiPublishing, as crowd-sourcing a book always fascinated me. So, I decided only 3 days back to start with a page called "Kharghar" as it is my favorite place and I happen to know a lot about it. Still, I added only 2 lines to start with. If you have more concern or doubt, please leave a comment. You are always invited. Sincerely, Fahad.--Fahadmonibsiddiqui (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)— Fahadmonibsiddiqui (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).[reply]

Delete and salt - quite apart from the aggressive attitude of the COI editors toward the nominator, I've just done a reference check - this is a blatantly promotional article, with most sources being bad. Promotional blogs, sponsored content sites, press releases ... I'm actually surprised there are a few sources that pass WP:RS. If this is kept, it needs to be cut down to strictly what's in RSes, and will be about a paragraph. However, given the aggressively promotional attitude of the COI editors, I'd advise it be salted as well if deleted, to forestall another round of this. That's the only reason I haven't just stuck a G11 tag on it - David Gerard (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless and shallow claim about COI **David Gerard Instead of blatantly referring to me as a COI editor, why don't you do some research and provide solid proof about this COI you are talking about? that apart, Can you pick one line from the article where it sounds promotional? Again, the references include many authority sites like techcrunch, did you pay them to be so sure about these being promotional references? Most of these references don't even mention the topic exclusively. I request you to please do a proper research instead of blaming someone who wants to improve wikipedia for the collective good as a COI editor. Jacobkoshy333 (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)— Jacobkoshy333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).[reply]
- - Your editing history shows you quite clearly fit the definition of a single-purpose account. Perhaps this is out of the goodness of your heart - David Gerard (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have edited many other articles , this just happens to be the article I attempted to create as a new user learning about wikipedia. You can check my other edits too. And, I don't think I clearly fit that definition just because I stand for what I feel is right. Jacobkoshy333 (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC) I asked raised a few questions about your comments on the topic, yet you only answered one which was about me. This feels more like a personal attack than a discussion about the topic. Jacobkoshy333 (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - please, everyone take a step back. This is a discussion about the notability of the article topic. Let's keep it specific to that, yes? Has this topic received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? In comments above User:David Gerard mentions finding a few reliable sources. That is an indication to me that there may be a plausible case for notability. Or maybe not. A review of sources is required first... -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article - everything I didn't tag is plausibly an RS. So that'll be [7] and a passing mention in [8]. As I noted, if we cut it down to things noted in those that aren't direct quotes from the company, it'll be about a paragraph - David Gerard (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the VCCircle ref[9] is heavy on quoting company. There's also a tangential mention in the The Economic Times [10]. Without further sources, doesn't look like will pass WP:GNG. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This company is indeed popular and notable Hi Everyone, I can assure that this is a notable company in its field. I am a data scientist by passion and this company happens to be the leader in acquiring product data for enterprises. I am very sure about this since this is a field I have been interested in since the last 3 years. That's also the reason why I picked this as my first topic to create on wikipedia. I swear that I still don't understand how this article is promotional, I see only neutral explanation of the topic with some great references to back it. I request you to not act by your instincts and do a proper research before making these claims. I also don't understand why some users here seem to be bullying new editors on wikipedia by simply nominating whatever they edit for deletion. For example, I edited Nokia's page by adding a few lines about their return to the smartphones market and someone was quick to find and delete my lines from the page although it was totally relevant. I don'think any of the references are paid/promotional because, many sites in the list are authoritative and it would be like disrespecting such sites if you say they write for money. Jacobkoshy333 (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO as blatant advertisement (Services, History, Awards) and so that to not further waste volunteer editors' time trying to maintain the neutrality of this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman Which of the lines sounded advertising like to you? I am intrigued. And your two lines of comment without any substantial content seems like you're just ignoring your responsibilities and trying to pass your assumptions as judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobkoshy333 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to state that, the aggressive nature was showed by some of the moderators (several times, please check the talk page and you can see one moderator asking a contributor about creating an account for this purpose) & not me (a COI editor according to everyone). If we are talking about notabality of article then you guys can judge it all day but please care to explain the promotional content of the article. I seriously couldn't find any. However, I would like to believe that you guys are expert and know better than me, who has recently joined, you guys should be mature enough to handle such situations like a professional and not aggressively. Also, please stop calling me COI. This makes me quit Wikipedia immediately. User:David Gerard Lemongirl942 K.e.coffman 1Wiki8........................... -- Raj Bipin Bhatt (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the article comes across as promotional. For example, it includes a list of non-notable awards, under "Awards and achievements":

2012: Nasscom's 50 Emerging Companies List^[1]^{[non-primary source needed]}
2012: Indian Industrial Excellence Award
2013: Microsoft Bizspark India^[2]^{[failed verification]} Startup Challenge Finalist
2013: Cloud Advantage Award for Best in-house Innovation^[3]^{[user-generated source?]}

References

^ "Winners 2012: Start-up Category". Nasscom. Retrieved 27 August 2016.
^ "Microsoft's BizSpark to boost start-up ecosystem in India". Business Standard. Retrieved 29 August 2016.
^ "Winners 2012: Start-up Category". Daily News and Analysis. Retrieved 27 August 2016.

This content is cited to primary sources and serves to promote the company; it does not add value to Wikipedia, per WP:PROMO. If Wikipedia is used for promotional purposes, it loses its value. I hope this clarifies. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Couldn't find any promotional content at allAs David Gerard has said above, there could be more worthy references apart from them. It makes sense to remove the content that isn't backed by credible sources and keep what's left. It certainly is not a good option to delete the entire page just because there are a few not so great references. I would also like to bring your attention to the fact that someone has even tagged wikipedia's own references as not credible, so I stress on being logical here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobkoshy333 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coudn't find any reason to delete I still don't get it why it's being considered for deletion when there are enough trustworthy sources. Jacobkoshy333 (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Never contributing to wiki again It is unfortunate that some people want this legitimate page to be deleted despite its credible references. I am not going to contribute to wikipedia ever again, only to be called a COI editor. I hope the admins look at this neutrally and do what's right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobkoshy333 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The page should stay It does have high authority references that couldn't have been a marketing exercise. This does imply that the topic is actually worth having on wiki. Someone has to find more sources that the creator might have missed. It is a lazy work to evaluate the topic only based on the provided sources. After all, we are here to add value to the users of wikipedia and not it's not about judging based on presumptions. Jacobkoshy333 (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Toddst1 probably couldn't find anything against the article, so he came up with an irrational and non verifiable duck theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobkoshy333 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: per David and the obvious tag team bombing of both the article and this AFD. Toddst1 (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP; sources mostly fail WP:RS, and as such fail to indicate inherent notability. _Muffled ^Pocketed 06:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify - A standard WP:BEFORE search did not reveal enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources to pass the general notability threshold. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt as per David fails WP:NCORP mostly non-RS and attacks by SPAs on other editors. Jim1138 (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment going through and removing the tags on the dubious sources doesn't make them into good sources. Please review WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia pages aren't reliable sources? There were unreliable source tags on links to existing wiki pages, does that make any sense? Jacobkoshy333 (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Wikipedia pages aren't reliable sources. This should not be a surprise to you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PROMO and does not meet CORPDEPTH. Kierzek (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Raj Bipin Bhatt is a Confirmed sock of Jacobkoshy333. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacobkoshy333.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Pride and the Pimptones

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating after the first debate was closed due to nobody participating after three relists. This is a non-notable, local level band with no claim to meeting WP:BAND. They've had sparse coverage in the press of their local area. The sourcing of the article is to sources like Amazon, Bandcamp and their indie record label. Given the lack of quorum last time, comment would be welcome. KaisaL (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There appear to be album reviews sufficient to meet the base notability guideline for musicians per articles like: http://www.hhv-mag.com/de/review/8677/nick-pride-and-the-pimptones-go-deep and http://www.hhv-mag.com/de/review/6017/nick-pride-the-pimptones-rejuiced-phat-shake . Someone with a better grasp of German may disagree? BoyRD (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with the last poster they have been reviewed internationally, many of the references are international so they are more than a local band, pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little coverage found in reliable sources, and what I did find is brief. There's barely any reliable independent sourcing in the article and the sources there seem to represent what's out there. --Michig (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laysha Ostrow

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

Contested PROD. Biography of an academic who does not meet WP:PROF and I do not believe she meets WP:GNG either. bonadea contributions talk 05:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious lack of notability - David Gerard (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article provides no evidence of notability through WP:GNG or otherwise. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all here for actual substance and independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did anyone check Google Scholar? She's written a number of articles in health journals that you can look at if you search there. She also pops up in a Google Book search. I can't chase these down at the moment, but I think it's worth looking at. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Writing articles isn't usually held to pass the notability bar. I looked and don't see anything jump out at me. Do you have particular convincing examples you're thinking of? - David Gerard (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the above comment, We may relist this debate. NasssaNser 03:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per request Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS citations indicate WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: WP:PROMO and WP:TOOSOON at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real claim to notability and low single-digit GS. Agricola44 (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. List of Northern Exposure (video blog) episodes wasn't tagged, so not deleting it here. It will need its own AfD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Exposure (video blog)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable blog. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The 2009 AfD closed with anticipation of a merger of this article and another into the main STV News article, and this was indeed done in August 2011. However, that section on the "Online Video Blogs" was deleted in March 2012, probably not unreasonably to curtail undue focus on defunct features. Having been merged once and then removed, it would be strange to merge again. The name is one that has been used by other TV productions, giving some search false-positives, but I am seeing no evidence that the blog ever attained non-primary attention and can be regarded as notable. AllyD (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is also a List of Northern Exposure (video blog) episodes article which should probably be considered alongside this AfD. (The list of programmes, with features on the presenters' problems with seagulls and makeup, looks like it may have been fun to make but rather inward and perhaps not eliciting the same public fascination.) AllyD (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable and appears to be a part of a walled garden; pls see Weather Blether that I recently PRODed. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article's been improved and source so clear Keep, Moves should be discussed on the talkpage but anyway consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quicksilver (company)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Edwardx (creator) with the following rationale "PROD tag removed. There are now independent sources.". I disagree, the coverage is trivial and in passing, and I stand by my original assessment that this company does not meet NCORP. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I expanded it to add secondary sources and provide more context. I believe it now meets the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but what you have added is not really relevant - the 4 or so sources are not about that company, they are about its parent holding company, Talarius, and mention Quicksilver in passing only (ex. "Talarius operates... The company’s best-known brands are Quicksilver, Silvers and Winners"). Not a single of the new refs is about Quicksilver. That totally fails in-depth requirement, and I hope you and the closing administrator will consider the policy which specifically states that trivial mentions in passing do not esabilish notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talarius and Quicksilver are synonymous in my view even if, technically, they are legally separate. Personally, I have no objection to the article being moved from Quicksilver to Talarius but the best way of covering the subject will probably always be to discuss both in the same article. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to renaming the article, but it would require a proper rewrite. I have not looked into whether Talarus is notable enough for NCORP, but on the surface it appears at the very least more notable (there is more coverage of it) than of its Quicksilver holding. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many thanks to Philafrenzy for his kind work in expanding the article. It would have met WP:GNG and WP:NCORP before, and certainly does now. Edwardx (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument at AfD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gdańsk University of Technology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Chemistry, Gdańsk University of Technology

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

University faculties are rarely notable, as they do not generate coverage sufficient for WP:GNG/WP:NORG. I have proposed a merger of this to Gdańsk University of Technology, but the creator of the article removed the template without commenting in edit summary or on the talk page, where I did start a discussion (in which nobody has commented). In that case I see no recourse but to propose deletion of this as a non-notable entity failed NORG, with no prejudice to merge. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prune (leaving only the material covered in the first three sections) and merge into Gdańsk University of Technology. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge. We do not usually have articles on separate faculties. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Gdańsk University of Technology, which will improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cancelled AFL matches

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

Barely a list. It only has one valid entry, with a partial postponement and a pre-season practice match being included for padding. Even if there were more items, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Aspirex (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only a small list, and barely notable. MasterMind5991 (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if these are genuinely the only matches that have ever been cancelled, then an article on the topic definitely isn't warranted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:LISTN, have been unable to find anything (except this article and mirrors), that covers this subject as a whole, only hits that discuss individual cancellations (btw heres another one? - AFL game between lions and hawks). Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- only three entries and trivial topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Abdel

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BASIC, per source searches. The subject has received coverage, but the sources are not reliable per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Our criteria for notability of musicians is clear: notable ... if they meet at least one of the following criteria: (2) Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. Well, DJ Abdel had a Top 10 album called Evolution in SNEP the French national chart and also charted in Swiss and Belgian charts. His follow up Double Face 2015 also made it to the Top 30. He has had also no less than 9 charting singles on the French official singles chart. See charting albums and singles here: http://lescharts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=DJ+Abdel also documented in his discography section on Wikipedia. So criteria of having "a single" or "an album" on any country's national music chart is fully satisfied to make this long-standing artist who started in the late 1990s and still strong nowadays notable as per our own criteria. Suggest changing note to "refimprove". No need to delete this article at all. werldwayd (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO states that musicians or ensembles, "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria" (italic emphasis mine), but does not carry a presumption of automatic notability for meeting one of the criteria. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But Musicbio is talking about one single or one album at least. But when you have multitude of charting singles and albums over a great stretch of time on official country charts, I think it certainly would carry more weight. It is not that this is a "one-off single" artist but consistently successful and thus notable and not only in France but to some extent in Belgium and Switzerland as well. To further solidify his status was his success as well in a considerable number of film soundtracks. werldwayd (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert's Big Move

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

~~Fails WP:NBOOK. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline speedy candidate as solely promotional. Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not solely promotional, but rather simply informative, none the difference in Wolves of Calla. I enjoyed the book and thought both author and book could be added to Wikipedia. Obviously I am new here and apparently have missed a few correct places to link to. For that I am sorry. I am not the author, just a reader who thought this book and author could be included. Caninelobo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.225.66 (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I removed the claims of it being submitted for the Caldecott and Newbery Medal - the thing about those awards is that it's not hard to submit something for consideration for those, as just about anyone can do that if they have access. It's not the same thing as when you have an award where the only way to be selected is via a committee that specifically looks for nominees. In any case that's a bit moot since only wins give notability on Wikipedia. A search brought up nothing to show that this book passes notability guidelines at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Lourdes 03:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bitnation

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

Looks like quite copied other website would be speedy or other reasons? ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 05:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is plagiarism, but not a copyright violation, so there is not rule against that on Wikipedia.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have written this article. I have fixed the plagiarism, taking anything that I copied out of the article. If there is anything still in the article, let me know and I will fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plechette Dey (talk • contribs) 04:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note - A quick google news browse is showing writeups in some indy RS non-trade-mag sources, especially german press. Copyright issues override any AFD issues. That should be resolved first. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a standard WP:BEFORE search turned up a plethora of good sources to use to fix this article. Starting with a mention in a CNN article about global passports, where the writer states "This could be the ultimate calling for start-ups such as BitNation, which has already begun issuing virtual IDs -- effectively digital passports -- using blockchain technology."[11]. Then more substantial coverage from International Business Times [12][13][14], from The Daily Telegraph [15], from Deutsche Welle [16][17], and a bunch more[18][19][20], and etc etc etc. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep meets WP:GNG--Prisencolin (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The strongest argument came from Lemongirl942 who gave a thorough appraisal of the sources in the article; however even they admitted one or two may be suitable, and their critique doesn't seem to be endorsed sufficiently in depth by anyone else. I have to AGF that the claims that Eastern European sources are not so easily accessible to native English speakers are believable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pál Milkovics

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

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

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

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

No indication of significance. Most references are in foreign language. Article is rough poorly translated. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your feedback Zackmann08. Please do apologise for my English, yes I am not a native speaker. I am very new here (this is my first article) and trying to be as useful as possible for the WIKIPEDIA community and do appreciate any thoughts on how can I improve, that is why I asked your feedback many times, and only get after the third attempt a very grumpy answer from you (which is not really in compliance with the 'Please do not bite the newcomers' policy). I most definitely will work to correct the mistakes in the article, adding more English references. Please let me express my disagreement with you that the article has been proposed for deletion, I can see that the article is on Wikipedia since more than 8 years, I only have added updates and more relevant information based on what I have collected. In my opinion the article should be in English because it has many references in Czech, Finish, Swedish and Hungarian (beside the English ones), and Milkovics does business internationally. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains several indications of significance, and neither cited sources not being in English nor the article being less than perfectly translated are issues that have any bearing on whether this should be deleted, so no part of the nomination statement gives any reason for deletion. I haven't yet done the necessary work to check for notability, which is a possible reason for deletion not identified by the nominator. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have further improved the article, de-orphaned, adding more references, language corrections, etc.. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still nothing convincing regardless of improvements, because this still suggests it's only existing PR, also I'm not seeing anything to suggest this could then be acceptable soon. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you for your feedback SwisterTwister. I have zero interest in editing this article which is here for more than 8 years, besides updating with new information what I have gathered. The last thing I wanted to do is making PR to anyone, but also I do not want to be the reason to delete the article. As I wrote earlier here, I am new to WIKI and this is my first article, any suggestion that how I can improve, is very much appreciated and I will do the work. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After SwisterTwister's suggestion of the questionable notability of the person (even though it was not the original reason to nominate this article for deletion), I have checked Wikipedia's guideline on the basic criteria Wikipedia:Notability (people) of notability. The article meets the basic criteria: "have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." All the references are independent from the person, published by journalist, and published on reliable sources (in several different countries). None of the the links, references are publish by the person, none of them a blog, or any social media post done by the person in the article. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello, I am a journalist for a broadcasting news website in Germany, and using wikipedia often for background infos. I have used this article many times in the past and the updates are helping our work. 46.189.28.234 (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which news website is it that you work for? That's an important question, because any news source whose journalists rely on Wikipedia can't be regarded as a reliable source. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I work for an online news site specialising for the marketing and media industry. I quiet surprised of your lecture how journalism should work, I am a journalist since 25 years and having an established resume. I do not rely on wikipedia, but if we are looking/searching for information it does come across and we read it, double check it, cross reference it etc.. I did not know that this is not encouraged by wikipedia or its community. I never thought that this community can be as hostile as I see in this and other discussion pages. You are not encouraging any new editor, but rather crush them, if they make mistakes. This could be an interesting story as well. By the way none of the references in the article leads to our site. 85.255.232.225 (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable based on European media news. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or ~~'Keep(needs rewritten)~~ article copyvio from http://www.horecacee.com/Speakers/ and movies brought result _only_ when searched them with their original Hungarian name, but nothing notable. Has been in Hungarian television, according to NAVA (Hungarian public broadcasters archive): http://nava.hu/kereses-eredmenye/?collection=none&genre=none&language=none&title=&contributor=&subject=&description=Milkovics+Pál (notnotable?)

Czech wiki: no own article, Mňam TV(actually links to this one)
Slovakian wiki: not mentioned
Finnish wiki: not mentioned

Fruitmince (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fruitmince, thank you for your feedback. I don't know much of his Hungarian notability, but he was 23 when he left the country as I found out in an interview, I would say (and concerning the fact that 15 years ago the digital footprint couldn't be as as traceable as today) I agree that based on his Hungarian history he would not be notable, but the article I edited not focuses on it at all, his notability was established based on his business track-record, includes 15 references of which each one of them comply with Wikipedia notability requirements. I am working on the Czech article as well, but I feel a little bit discouraged, as this article has been here for so long now with a remark that it is up for deletion, even though I checked all the relevant guidelines and it is in my opinion should not qualify for deltion (as you can see conversations above), I have spent a lot time to improve the article (see its history). Most of the comments are not providing relevant help for improvement as I hoped from this site. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 05:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lets start with first and very big problem. His article, as it is now, looks too much like this: (From here: http://www.horecacee.com/Speakers/ )

"Started his career as radio host and TV reporter; some of his notable works include documentaries about the forgotten children in ::Chernobyl, the war in Kosovo, and the organ trade in India. In 2003 became editor-in-chief responsible for programme development in RTL ::Group.

In 2007 he co-founded IEM Group, which started as a garage media company and gradually evolved to a multi-national enterprise with ::offices in four countries. Pal's main responsibility was new business development and supervision of production processes. Under his ::management, IEM Group has created various successful TV formats such as documentaries, lifestyle shows and children programmes that ::have been broadcast all over Europe. He also served as adviser for media policies on multi-national level to the European Commission.

Together with Sami Garam launched the Nordic Food Channel in 2011 with main focus on Finland.

Founded Nordic Media Entertainment in 2012, which controls Czech lifestyle TV channels TV Mňam and TV Mňau through its broadcasting ::company CE Media."

Fruitmince (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fruitmince, please advise what is the big problem with it? This text was taken from Wikipedia by the conference I believe, as this is exactly the text I started editing in few weeks ago (check for the previous versions in the history of the article). Pikipaki2222 (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it was here first: http://www.horecacee.com/Speakers/ Fruitmince (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that the opposite is true, the text in question was added to Wikipedia on the 13th of August of 2015, the conference was held on the 26-27th of November in the same year. As well checking the editing history, there was no "copy/paste editing on the page". Beside these facts, I do not recall any Wikipedia guideline of which your raised issue would be a reason to delete the page. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Copyright violations Fruitmince (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fruitmince, I have searched the webarchives and found this for your information, this is a snapshot of the conference's website on the 13th of September of 2015, as you can see there is no trace of the text you claim was taken from the site, even Milkovics was not even mention on it, however the text already was on Wikipedia. https://web.archive.org/web/20150913072334/http://www.horecacee.com/Speakers/ so it cannot be a copyright violation, unless you accuse the conference's site to taking the text from Wikipedia without actually add the source. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject seems to be notable only for CE media. Business people often make it into news solely because they are associated with the company, many times their coverage is coatracked to news about the company itself. As notability is not inherited, we require coverage where the focus is on the subject. More importantly, this is a WP:BIO1E and usually article about CEOs are redirected to the company. Additionally, I also have concerns about conflict of interest editing going on. Accordingly I would say delete or redirect to the company article per Common_outcomes#Business_people_and_executives. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lemongirl942, as I am basically the only contributor of this article I must state: I have nothing to do with the person in the article, never met and never talked to him, your claim is completely unfounded and I will remove the tag from the article and seeking help from admins to prevent you to add it again. For your attention I would like add here references from different countries (all in the article of which probably you failed to read), before even CE Media was established, as well I do add references of which covers the person, not just his business. The references are from 11 different reliable sources (in compliance with Wikipedia guidlines), from 4 different countries (Czech, Belgium, Sweden, Finland).

www.mediaguru.cz/2015/11/barrandov-presune-bezdruzice-muzeme-mit-i-maresovu-show/#.V7NmlmVLGgE

http://www.mediar.cz/k-mnam-a-mnau-pribude-zpravodajsky-kanal-z24/

http://www.digizone.cz/clanky/pal-milkovics-tezke-casy-skoncily-pripravujeme-nove-projekty/

http://www.radiotv.cz/p_tv/potrebuje-cesko-dalsi-zpravodajskou-televizi-ma-z24-sanci-na-uspech/

http://mam.ihned.cz/media/c1-65355050-milkovics-chce-spustit-novou-zpravodajskou-televizi-mnam-i-mnau-dostanou-novy-vizual

http://mediahub.cz/rozhovory-35810/pal-milkovics-chysta-novy-televizni-kanal-a-tvrdi-staci-tri-procenta-a-vydelame-838652

http://www.mediaguru.cz/2015/06/mnam-tv-se-v-radu-mesicu-rozsiri-na-slovensko/#.Vd-BVrSgOuc

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5499688/filmotype

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-nordic-food-channel-starts-broadcasting-in-cable-next-fall-122638308.html

http://www.tmcnet.com/scripts/reprint.aspx?PagePrint=http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2011/05/26/5535760.htm

http://www.sr.se/webbradio/webbradio.asp?type=db&id=1157884

http://www.marmai.fi/uutiset/kokki-garam-saa-oman-ruokakanavan-6276987

http://umami.fi/ruoka-juoma/umami/pohjoismaisen-ruoan-tv-kanava/

Pikipaki2222 (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After further reading on deletion policy of Wikipedia I would like to add more argument of keeping this article:

- There is continues significant coverage of the person WP:CONTIN

- This person has been involved in multiple notable events WP:MULT. Here is what they are: Founding Nordic Food Channel in Finland in 2012, founding Mnam TV in 2014, founding Mnau TV in 2015, founding Z24 TV in 2016

- Most importantly he has received significant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. WP:BASIC , here are the references from the article:

www.mediaguru.cz/2015/11/barrandov-presune-bezdruzice-muzeme-mit-i-maresovu-show/#.V7NmlmVLGgE

http://www.mediar.cz/k-mnam-a-mnau-pribude-zpravodajsky-kanal-z24/

http://www.digizone.cz/clanky/pal-milkovics-tezke-casy-skoncily-pripravujeme-nove-projekty/

http://www.radiotv.cz/p_tv/potrebuje-cesko-dalsi-zpravodajskou-televizi-ma-z24-sanci-na-uspech/

http://mam.ihned.cz/media/c1-65355050-milkovics-chce-spustit-novou-zpravodajskou-televizi-mnam-i-mnau-dostanou-novy-vizual

http://mediahub.cz/rozhovory-35810/pal-milkovics-chysta-novy-televizni-kanal-a-tvrdi-staci-tri-procenta-a-vydelame-838652

http://www.mediaguru.cz/2015/06/mnam-tv-se-v-radu-mesicu-rozsiri-na-slovensko/#.Vd-BVrSgOuc

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5499688/filmotype

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-nordic-food-channel-starts-broadcasting-in-cable-next-fall-122638308.html

http://www.tmcnet.com/scripts/reprint.aspx?PagePrint=http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2011/05/26/5535760.htm

http://www.sr.se/webbradio/webbradio.asp?type=db&id=1157884

http://www.marmai.fi/uutiset/kokki-garam-saa-oman-ruokakanavan-6276987

http://umami.fi/ruoka-juoma/umami/pohjoismaisen-ruoan-tv-kanava/

Pikipaki2222 (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't establish notability:

Being _related_ to Holocaust survivor (someone may use it as excuse to troll so it shouldn't be listed.)

Doesn't own Michelin-start restaurant (couldn't find guideline, so I used notability of Gordon Ramsay)
His documentaries haven't had exposure to 'greater public'(win of/nomination/screening in European Film Awards/Cannes or similar..)

(Did extra Hungarian Google(https://www.google.hu/) litmus test with "Pál Milkovics + Európai Filmdíj(Hungarian name of "European Film Awards") + [original title of document], all in one search string with Boolean emphasis. Repeated with Cannes and Sundance Festival with their respective Hungarian names.)

First document: no full match, all missing two or more of search terms

Second: no full match, all missing two or more of search terms

Third: zero results

Fourth: zero results/no full match, all missing two or more of search terms(there are two ways to write uranium bomb in Hungarian or was there typo? 'Uránbombák' and Urán Bombák(this one produced results.))

And the sources...

Not reliable:

http://www.imdb.com/

http://www.tmcnet.com/

Couldn't access through archive.org: (Used it only because reference link gave message "Page or audio not found".)

http://www.sr.se/

reklama :

www.mediaguru.cz/ (Two links)

http://www.mediar.cz

Carbon copies:

http://www.marmai.fi/

http://umami.fi/

http://www.prnewswire.com/

This leaves us....

Two interviews:

http://www.digizone.cz/

http://mediahub.cz/

edit* (http://mam.ihned.cz) with on .cz wiki (off-discussion comment: sorry for multiple edits, wasn't aware that using word article/entry/Marketing & Media....everything would place it to sidebar. Use this to check: https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_%26_Media )

One I'm not sure about: (no _own_ article in .cz wiki/not in country profile/just used as source/external in articles about.. various tv series or stations, radio engineering, ::radio stations information, multiple persons profile....... and on CET 21...)

http://www.radiotv.cz/

~~I redact my Keep(if I still can) and replace it with Delete. Read above.~~ (Didn't mean to recast) Fruitmince (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fruitmince Would you be so kind to tell me why did you exclude the Swedish Public Broadcaster's Radio from the references (http://www.sr.se/)

Can you please explain what is Wikt:reklama? And why you excluded those sites, for example Marketing and Media is the most trustworthy industry news outlet in the country and belongs to Economia a.s. which is belongs to one of the biggest media company in the Czech Republic.

Would you please explain how is being related to a Holocaust survivor could "someone may use it as excuse to trol"?

Can you tell us how "with good faith" how can you assume the RadioTv is not a reliable source, if you know nothing about?

With all due respect, I don't see clearly your intentions here, you have (read above) tried to advocate to the deletion of the article based on an ill-founded copyright claim, of which I had to prove it, as well you have deleted significant parts from the article of which led Lemongirl942 to believe that the I am somehow related to the person and he did nothing else just to fund one company. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I leave this discussion before descend to rudeness. Fruitmince (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to offend you, just were making some points (asking you questions) in order to protect my work. Here I would like to add that the sites you claim are "reklama" (which is advertising in Czech) both are reliable sources for industry specific news, Mediaguru.cz (see its wiki page) is an independent, respected site since 2007, Mediar is one of the most read, also industry specific website and as well a print magazine . Sorry to repeat, and I have no intention to offend you at all, buy you clearly not have enough information to make your claims, but you can mislead others. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article it does meet with WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV we like it or not. The guideline says: "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." and "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English". 213.174.99.146 (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 213.174.99.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment on sources Just to clarify I wasn't misled and I stand by my vote that the subject is not notable. A closer understanding of the sources shows why they are not reliable.

http://www.mediaguru.cz/2015/11/barrandov-presune-bezdruzice-muzeme-mit-i-maresovu-show/#.V7NmlmVLGgE - closely affiliated to industry. See [21]. Not to be used per WP:SPIP
http://www.mediar.cz/k-mnam-a-mnau-pribude-zpravodajsky-kanal-z24/ - WP:SPIP concerns, source is closely affiliated to industry. The subject's coverage in the article is limited to quotes, which is routine coverage and not useful for notability
http://www.digizone.cz/clanky/pal-milkovics-tezke-casy-skoncily-pripravujeme-nove-projekty/ - Interview (primary source). Also the website may not be reliable. Social media indicates hardly any followers. It also doesn't seem like a news site with editorial standards.
http://www.radiotv.cz/p_tv/potrebuje-cesko-dalsi-zpravodajskou-televizi-ma-z24-sanci-na-uspech/ - Again, concerns per WP:SPIP. The site reports on industry news in the media industry.
http://mam.ihned.cz/media/c1-65355050-milkovics-chce-spustit-novou-zpravodajskou-televizi-mnam-i-mnau-dostanou-novy-vizual - Reliable, (but so far the only one)
http://mediahub.cz/rozhovory-35810/pal-milkovics-chysta-novy-televizni-kanal-a-tvrdi-staci-tri-procenta-a-vydelame-838652 - Interview (Primary source). Not sure about the reliability of the source
http://www.mediaguru.cz/2015/06/mnam-tv-se-v-radu-mesicu-rozsiri-na-slovensko/#.Vd-BVrSgOuc - closely affiliated to industry. See [22]. Not to be used per WP:SPIP
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5499688/filmotype - IMDB is not a reliable souroce
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-nordic-food-channel-starts-broadcasting-in-cable-next-fall-122638308.html - PR, definitely not independent.
http://www.tmcnet.com/scripts/reprint.aspx?PagePrint=http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2011/05/26/5535760.htm - A literal copy of #9 PRNewswire, no independent.
http://www.sr.se/webbradio/webbradio.asp?type=db&id=1157884 - Unable to access or even find the archive version
http://www.marmai.fi/uutiset/kokki-garam-saa-oman-ruokakanavan-6276987 - Trivial coverage
http://umami.fi/ruoka-juoma/umami/pohjoismaisen-ruoan-tv-kanava/ - Copy of previous source

With one or two reliable independent sources, I will go with a delete at this point. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am from the Czech Republic, all these sources above are well known, reliable and independent sites, papers in this country I am wondering why others are saying the opposite when they don't even know anything about them. 194.228.20.240 (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 194.228.20.240 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Foreign references are not a reason for deletion, but lack of notability certainly is. I'm not seeing reliable sources for his notability. Most of the article is actually about ventures he has been associated with. Meters (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Walking#Variants. The only keep arguments do not appear to be addressing the notability concerns and seem to be single-purpose accounts. Going for a redirect to Walking#Variants because it has more support in terms of headcount and arguments, and leaving the page history in case someone can take useful information from it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Walking

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

"Beach Walking" seem to be non-notable categories of sport. Almost all references on the web to its "governing body" that I see on Google seem to be spam type links. While there seem to be many references on the web to the concept of walking on the beach or 5Ks that are held on beaches, there doesn't seem to be any notability to the concept as its own category of sport. only (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Walking (sport). I did find some articles that seem reputable covering the concept of beach walking or running, but it seems more like a phrase to ambling on the beach in the context of the article, not an official phrase for an official sport. [23]. Perhaps I'm missing some articles and completely and totally wrong, so I will do one more google search. Yvarta (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - found nothing, really, a few more references to beach walking as a casual form of recreation, but not a sport [24]. I do get the impression it is a sport to a small community of people, but they haven't garnered the coverage to pass WP:GNG. Yvarta (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 04:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have changed the text and the links of the page of Beach Walking. I think that is OK.--Beach run do (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC) — Beach run do (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I think that Beach Walking is a sport and a Health and fitness activity. Perhaps the solution is improve the definition. In any case, I think that it is right now, Beach Walking is a physical activity or a sport. Joyceanne38 (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC) — Joyceanne28 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can walk on any level surface. That's pretty much how walking works. I see that it has already been added to Walking#Variants, unreferenced. delete and redirect to there, at least for now. And/or to the sports article. Certainly agree with Yvarta and the nominator that we don't need a separate article at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to walking. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The side for keeping is in the majority and AbstractIllusions has provided objective evidence of notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Warner

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

Does not seem to meet standards of notability. Biography section describes the usual tale of a wandering soul who drifted around, made it to Japan, made it out again, tried his hands at online journalism^Wblogging, became a veteran of Buddhism, etc., etc. Most sources are self-published, niche newsletters, etc. Is he notable as a musician? Doesn't seem like it. Is he notable as a Zen priest? Doesn't seem so. Is he notable as an author? Doesn't seem so, etc., etc. Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Doesn't seem so" is not an argument, not even an opinion. Brad Warner is an internationally published author, and well-known for his criticisms of Dennis Merzel. That alone yet makes him notable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (people): "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

Tricycle, Articles by BradWarner, major American Buddhist magazine
San Francisco Zen Centre, Brad warner, one of the major Zen centres in the western world
Antaiji (Japanese lay Zen monastery, Muho comments on article by Brad Warner, and new tatamis arrive at Antaiji, September 16th 2014
NPO (Dutch Broacasting Organisation), Punk en Zen, major Dutch Broadcasting organisation
Secular Buddhist Association, Episode 243 :: Brad Warner :: Don’t Be A Jerk, And Other Practical Advice from Dogen, Japan’s Greatest Zen Master
Boeddhistisch Dagblad (netherlands), Non-conformist Brad Warner op toer in Nederland
Elephant Journal, Disrobing Genpo
Deutschlandfunk, Hardcore Zen - Die unorthodoxen Lehren des Brad Warner
Huffington Post, Sex, Sin & Zen: Brad Warner and the Lust for Enlightenment

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Tricycle are pieces written by him. The HuffPo piece is good...a few more of that caliber and I will be glad to change positions. The rest of what you listed are web pages: useful as "external links", but not for demonstrating notability. Agricola44 (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

NPO is the major broadcast organisation in Holland. here's an interview with Brad warner in Tricycle. This seems to be a BBC radio braocast on Brad Warner. And here's a Washington Post article which quotes Brad Warner. And here's a CNN transcript in Which Brad Warner offers comments on "the Chinese rituals that accompany this kind of funeral." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are all the sorts of things that become pretty sketchy. The WaPo quote, in its entirety, is "To me it sounds like we're just substituting karma for God", which is pretty trivial. Radio broadcasts are ephemeral and we typically don't resort to such things for notability. The Tricycle interview about his book helps a little, although this is a very obscure magazine (circulation <50K). The book itself has pretty low holdings for a general-interest topic (~230), but that could be because it is relatively new. Agricola44 (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Brad Warner is an internationally published author, and well-known for his criticisms of Dennis Merzel. That alone yet makes him notable." No it doesn't. He's not even mentioned on Merzel's page, which mentions "a group of 12 teachers", then "44 teachers", then "66 teachers", neither of which is specified with "including Brad Watner". Warner's publishing are in blogs and industry-specific journals. So "doesn't seem" seems pretty good against "A and B make him notable" when A and B don't count. Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Wiki-policies, instead of to your personal impressions. The lenght of the Merzel page could be multiplied with criticisms; only the most relevant have been mentioned. Warner has written several books, which are also available outside the USA. How much coverage do you expect outside the Buddhist subculture? If that's your criterium, most articles on Buddhist teachers should be deleted. The "industry-specific journals" are the kind of journals that are relevant here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, yeah. If all their notoriety is within the industry, and they are mentioned only in industry-specific journals, then they're not notable for an encyclopaedia, are they? You could put them on buddhism.wikia.com, or in Who's Who (and Who Has Been Who) Of Buddhism instead. Look at all the golf industry leaders who are prominent within the golfing world and who write books, but aren't in here, because they're not notable. Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spa-created article from the early days of WP. Sources are mostly ephemera. I failed to see that Dennis Merzel is even mentioned in this article. Agricola44 (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Correct; so, that's not a reason for deletion, but for improvement.

Sorry, but all I can find on this are a few web pages (one of which is in Joshua Jonathan's list above), so this is not actually a point for notability assertion. Agricola44 (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete non-notable as a writer, monk or musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep was leaning delete, but the CBC Radio interview combined with all of the minor independent sources seems enough to meet WP:GNG for me. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ran a Lexis Search for \"Brad Warner" Buddhism\ and got 12 results. 6 were significant coverage of him, 5 were brief mentions where he got at least one graph. 1 was a false hit. There has been significant coverage of him or his ideas in: The Belfast Telegraph, The Manchester Evening News, Daily Camera, and the National Post. And he has been quoted in articles by: The Washington Post and the Toronto Star (same article), and the Lowell Sun. The article will need to be fixed, but topic is notable clearly. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has several published books and has been reviewed and interviewed in mainstream media. Example: http://www.npr.org/books/authors/491715907/brad-warner

Seems as if 'delete' commenters have an axe to grind. Religious or otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.49.247.200 (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The folks commenting above have dug up enough sourcing that, taken as a whole, mean that the subject meets GNG. Vanamonde (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Zen

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

Non-notable show: only RS is [25] (and it reads like a sensationalist advertisement). — Esquivalience (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any coverage. There were some databases noting that this existed and there are some Youtube videos proving it, but that's about it. Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Lacks sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Perry_Mason#Regular_characters. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Tragg

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

This article doesn't show notability, contains no references to prove the importance of "Arthur Tragg" character. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added references and categories and expanded the original unreferenced article. I would be sympathetic to merging random characters from a typical TV show to the main article about the show, but the character of Lt Tragg has appeared in numerous Perry Mason novels starting in 1940, then on a daily radio series from 1943-1955, then a highly rated TV series from 1957-1965, a 1967 Perry Mason stageplay, and a revival of the TV series in 1973 and 1974. The Tragg character has received significant coverage in at least two reliable and independent sources, satisfying notability. See page 351 of Quarterly Review: A Journal of University Perspectives, Volume 56, which has a 131 word coverage of Tragg, and Icons of mystery and crime detection, page 562 which has a similarly long paragraph about Tragg. Naturally there are numerous passing references and directory listings in addition. One reference described Tragg as being in the "first team" of recurring characters in the novels. Tragg was described as an intelligent, friendly adversary of Perry Mason, but also called luckless and hapless. In one TV episode Mason pointed to him and told his naive client "The smiling policeman is not your friend." Edison (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a relevant main article. Currently, none of the sources in the article cite significant information. None of the information pertains to cultural significance or critical review, but rather just basic details about the character's existence that can be easily summarized elsewhere. TTN (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Perry Mason article. Nothing in this article indicates the subject's significance and agree with TTN that all the info can be summarized in the Mason article. ArchieOof (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Perry_Mason#Regular_characters; not individually notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A redirect may be created as an editorial action. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ain (mythology)

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. I can't find any sources to back up the claim on this page except for a single entry in Encyclopedia Mythica (which is also just a sentence; apparently I can't add a link because it is blacklisted...). Other than that Google searches for "Ain Brehon Laws" and "Ain Irish mythology" don't appear fruitful. In Books I could only find this which has a couple of poems including "Ain" as daughter of Partholón? I think it's a different "Ain" but it's hard for me to tell. Ajpolino (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete - Per nom. No cites offered or seemingly available which establish notability. Or indeed reliability of claims made. In honesty, even if a single reliable source could be found, the dozen words which make up the article (and it seems unlikely there would ever be much more than that) could be merged to the Brehon Law article. Or added to List of Irish mythological figures. And the existing "article" converted to a redirect. (But even then only if RS provided). Otherwise agree with nom that should be deleted. Guliolopez (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the appropriate target. Montanabw^(talk) 22:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chie Sawaguchi

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

If Boys Be is her most known role, that's not saying much since that is a supporting/guest role. I can't find any major roles or biographical data on this VA. Nothing is sourced here either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Her most well-known roles are Gajira in the 1999 Dr. Slump and Lilith in the Tales series. Both are main roles, and she's voiced at least nine games in the Tales series. I'll see if I can find anything more, including articles about her. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 37 roles in VADB [26] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've spent a fair amount of time trying to find online resources about Sawaguchi, but I am unable to find enough substantial sources to warrant keeping the article. Given the roles she's played, I'm sure there are Japanese magazine articles about her and her career. However, the magazines that would have that information do not have online lists of back issue content. Therefore, I think this article should be deleted without prejudice toward recreation or restoration should those sources be found by someone. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No additional sources are there to be found, this fails WP:N. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Thundermans. This has been open for long enough. The "delete" arguments are persuasive, and while there is a germ of an argument for the existence of two notable roles, nobody actually used that to argue for keeping: so redirect. Vanamonde (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Velazquez (actor)

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

Child actor with only one major (secondary) role to their name: The Thundermans – all other roles were minor, so WP:NACTOR fail. Also a decided lack of independent coverage (and what there is is only passing mentions), so WP:GNG fail. Simply not notable enough for an encyclopedia article (or WP:TOOSOON...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A final note: article was created by a now indef blocked user. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure how major his role was in Extraordinary Measures since I haven't seen it, but it looks like it should be major enough to count, as the character is mentioned or heavily referred to in a few reviews ([27], [28], [29]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, though those also look like passing mentions. IIRC, I have seen Extraordinary Measures, and my recollection is that the film is mostly Brendan Fraser and Harrison Ford, with the two children (one of which is played by Velazquez) not being in it all that much. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources do not meet the higher level of sources we should require to have articles on minors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If not enough support for actual deletion turns up, redirecting to The Thundermans is certainly a viable ("soft") alternative in the absence of enough sourcing to demonstrate true notability... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Pattillo

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a television writer, based entirely on user-generated genealogy sites and blogs except for a single glancing namecheck of his existence in a news article about somebody else he happened to work with. None of the sourcing here is adequate, and no claim of notability here is strong enough to exempt him from having to be sourced a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Alan Pattillo should have an article; he directed and wrote episodes of Thunderbirds, and was also the series' script editor. I would trust those user-generated blogs and genealogy sites, as Alan Pattillo has not complained about them or said that there is false information in them. That being said, we don't know if he has a computer. I'll wait for more opinions for now. Plankton55 (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether he's disputed the accuracy of the information in the blogs and genealogy sites or not; as you state, it's impossible for us to know whether he's even seen them or not to evaluate their accuracy or lack thereof. But our rules specifically state that user-generated content sites and WordPress blogs are inherently invalid sourcing, regardless of whether the subject has gone on record as disputing their content or not. And writing episodes of a television program, or being the program's script editor, are not claims of notability that automatically entitle a person to have an article — includability on those grounds is entirely dependent on how much reliable source media coverage you can or cannot provide about them in that role, not on "must have an article because he exists". Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Working on one TV series isn't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually passes WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Won an Emmy in 1979 for film editing on All Quiet on the Western Front (1979 film). He worked on almost all of Gerry Anderson's "marionation" television series and appears to have had creative input. He's namechecked at best 19 times by full name in What Made Thunderbirds Go!: The Authorized Biography of Gerry Anderson according to google, although I do not have the book to check. Google does return a quote stating 'I didn't have the confidence to risk too much on Stingray,' he remembers, 'although when Alan Pattillo was directing he encouraged me to try things differently and would stand by me if questioned by others.' I don't know who is talking, but it would appear he had a hand in something. Gerry Anderson's work is culturally recognised, and Patillo had a hand in it. I expect there are sources out there, just not on the internet. Anderson has a huge fan following and there's bound to be interviews with Patillo in the press such a fandom generates. I'll see if I can turn up anything else. Hiding T 09:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He's definitely been interviewed, he's quoted in the Thunderbirds (TV series) article, sourced to Marriott, John (1993). Supermarionation Classics: Stingray, Thunderbirds and Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons. Rogers, Dave; Drake, Chris; Bassett, Graeme. London, UK: Boxtree. ISBN 978-1-85283-900-0. Hiding T 09:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note Have rewritten article and provided references to reliable sources so that article now satisfies WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Please take into account the change to article when closing. Hiding T 11:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: is bfi.org.uk a reliable source? If anybody can add to it, then it's not, as that would essentially make it a wiki. Plankton55 (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Plankton55: Could you explain why you think the website of the British Film Institute is a wiki? Hiding T 18:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hiding: I never said I thought it was a wiki. I said that if anybody is able to add to it, that would make it a wiki. Can anybody add to it and if not, who can? Plankton55 (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Plankton55: It's the website of the British Film Institute. The website is maintained and built by the BFI, maintainers of the world's largest film archive and publishers of the respected Sight & Sound magazine. It's like the British Museum for film. It's maintained and updated by experts in the field. Hiding T 08:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Hiding: But are these "experts" people who register and/or edit, or what? Plankton55 (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Plankton55: We seem to be going around in circles. Why have you put experts in quotes? What's the underlying question you are asking? Is there a site you wish was a reliable source that isn't and you want to understand why? You strike me as a British user, I assume you have heard of the British Film Institute? I don't think I can carry this conversation much further without some more information on your part that doesn't consist of questions. Hiding T 16:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @Hiding: Please answer my above question, it will help me decide whether the BFI website is a reliable source. If it was people who could edit the site, or people who signed up and edited the site, then yes, I would have problem with it. If, on the other hand, it was only "officials" that could add and modify content, then I would treat it as reliable. Does this help? Plankton55 (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @Plankton55: Judging reliability of sourcing is an art not a science. Here we're only using it for credits. If you read WP:V you'll see we rely in this instance on the publisher to do the fact checking. The publisher here is the BFI. As I said, it would help me if you could tell me why you are suggesting it is edited by anyone. To me it is like suggesting The Times is edited by anyone, if that helps. Hiding T 22:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Plankton55 admittedly used the wrong word to communicate his concern, but Wikipedia does deprecate user-generated content sites, where anybody can submit anything for publication, as not reliable or notability-conferring sources. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey Bearcat long time no see. I always preferred WP:V and the essay I drafted on sourcing WP:IS but that's pride for you! What I still can't fathom is why anyone is suggesting the BFI website is user generated. Hiding T 22:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    
    And to be fair Bearcat, we only generally deprecate user generated content, it's not an absolute given! :) Hiding T 22:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was just wondering if it said anywhere on the BFI site if only staff can edit it or if there was anything indicating that people can register and edit it. Plankton55 (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Have you checked the site? ;) Hiding T 22:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It discusses being a BFI member, does that mean they can edit the site, or does a person require special privileges to do so? Plankton55 (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Does it say anywhere on the site that membership allows you to edit it? ;) Hiding T 22:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It says that under "General" in BFI online community guidelines, people can submit contributions. It also talks about usernames. It sounds to me like people can add info without a source... Are those edits patrolled? Plankton55 (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That whole page is about comments on social media and every website includes those terms. Are you going to suggest we stop using newspapers as sources because they have the same terms and conditions and someone can become a member of, for example, The Guardian? I've already explained that the BFI website is a reliable source for what we're using it to source. I'm not sure what more is to be gained from this conversation if you are not willing to take my answer in good faith. Kind regards. Hiding T 08:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am taking your answer in good faith. I just would like to know how BFI works in regards to editing pages on that site. If I noticed that a page on BFI had missing information, would I be able to edit the page like an IP can edit WP, would you have to join by means of a long-winded process to edit it, or would you have to become an employee of BFI? Plankton55 (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I do not work for the BFI, I can't answer your question in full, and I don't understand why you are repeatedly asking the same question. The BFI website is not a wiki, is not created from user generated material and I can see nothing on the site which would make anyone question that or believe an IP can simply change any page. But I still have the impression that you do not have an understanding of how our sourcing policies work on Wikipedia. We are relying on the BFI to have fact checked the information on their site. Please read WP:V, particularly WP:SOURCE, which details that a publisher is one definition of a source. Here we are relying on the BFI as a source, not the person who edited the website. If you are interested in editing the BFI website, I suggest you contact them for more information. I hope that this concludes this conversation suitably. If not, please contact me on my talk page to save making this deletion debate any longer and sidetracking it with a side issue. Hiding T 10:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A bit of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Bernis

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

Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find reliable coverage in independent, secondary sources. JudgeRM (talk to me) 00:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 00:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 00:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insuffiencent coverage in reilable sources since I've only found one reliable source from the NY times in my search results. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 01:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Greenburg

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

Delete. Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a film and television producer, which makes potentially valid claims of notability but fails to reliably source them; except for one legitimate reference which verifies a fact about his brother rather than being even minimally about him, every single other source present here at all is either primary or user-generated. In addition, the article has been directly edited by both the subject himself and a person directly named in the article as a collaborator of his, constituting conflict of interest editing. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source an article about him properly, but Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform on which anybody's entitled to keep an article that's written and sourced like this. Bearcat (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need to note that this is related to the AfDs for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americade (band) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard de Marigny. I'd initially thought that this was a walled garden and it isn't that necessarily, but this is all part of a fairly obvious attempt to promote de Marigny and people/things/groups associated with him, one of which is Greenburg. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertorial content and largely unsourced. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given the low input despite a relist, this is a WP:SOFTDELETE Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonso King Jr. II

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

Delete. This gives me no joy, as I actually know the article subject personally. But while valid claims of notability may be possible here, this article as written is based entirely on unreliable and self-published sources such as blogs, Facebook, IMDb, YouTube and sales profiles on iTunes and Beatport and eMusic -- as well as one (#6) that very maybe might have possibly been a RS, but I can't tell because it's been cybersquatted and just tried to make me fill out a customer survey about skin cream instead of verifying any content about Alphonso King. And the only reliable source coverage I can find on either Google or ProQuest is about him criticizing a white drag queen for doing a number in blackface -- which he was definitely right to do, but it doesn't constitute a notability claim in an encyclopedia. So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually find more of the reliable sourcing needed to salvage this than I've been able to, but in this state of sourcing it's not keepable just because he exists. Bearcat (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 10:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 10:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Florida Department of Law Enforcement . I'm giving more weight to the comments made after two sources were presented, and with that in mind, this is essentially unanimous to redirect. Obviously, this can be revisited should additional sources be found. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Capitol Police

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

I attempted to boldly redirect this article to its parent agency (FDLE), where there is already content covering it. That edit was reverted. Fails ORG. Reinstating the redirect would be a satisfactory outcome. John from Idegon (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 07:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 07:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 07:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 07:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, let's be honest here, what you tried to do was delete content by redirecting without incorporating any of the content into the parent article. That is not acceptable. I have no problem with a redirect, but not without a merge incorporating relevant information in a separate section. Maybe the Florida Capitol Police is not notable enough for its own article (I'm not convinced it isn't, but I won't oppose a merge and redirect), but it is certainly notable enough for its history to be recorded somewhere on Wikipedia. Just deleting it is doing no service to Wikipedia or its users whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can not see any reason for deletion or merging at this time. It is a good article with a lot of good info. However the article needs sources. That however is no reason for merging etc.BabbaQ (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Has anyone notices that there is not a single third party reference? DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant. The website of an official agency is a reliable source for basics like history and organisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is irrelevant: Without third-party reliable sources, this fails WP:V, a core policy. Government authorities are not exempt from this requirement. Sandstein 17:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is irrelevant+ what kind of rubbish is that? Notability is everything. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as these are quite rarely kept or even improved sufficiently for their own convincing article; none of this suggests the needed substance, and as such, could simply be mentioned elsewhere if needed instead. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Florida Department of Law Enforcement without prejudice against undoing the redirect if substantial coverage in reliable sources is found. Here are two sources about the subject to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability:
1. "Capitol Police Thank Legislators For New Name". Orlando Sentinel. 1991-05-01. Archived from the original on 2016-09-11. Retrieved 2016-09-11.
  The article notes:
  
  TALLAHASSEE — The Capitol Police, along with seven lobbyists, joined forces in thanking two lawmakers for a law that changed the name of the security force.
  A party for Reps. Darryl Reaves, D-Miami, and Everett Kelly, D-Tavares, was attended by about 100 lawmakers, staffers and a few lobbyists.
  The reception held last week was given to thank the two legislators for a bill they sponsored changing the name of the Division of Safety and Crime Prevention to Capitol Police, Kelly said.
  Kelly's son, Steve, an officer with the Capitol Police, said he collected some of the money for the party, but did not solicit it.
2. Kam, Dara (2011-10-10). "Police, chamber sergeants prepare for policy allowing guns in Florida Capitol". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on 2016-09-11. Retrieved 2016-09-11.
  The article notes:
  
  The FDLE oversees the Capitol Police. The House and Senate sergeants-at-arms staff man the doors to committee meetings and House and Senate chambers.
  Those wishing to sit in the public galleries for a session of the full House or Senate will have to pass through a metal detector and relinquish their gun if they have one, House Sergeant at Arms Ernie Sumner said. They will be referred to the Capitol Police, who have lock boxes where the weapons can be secured.
  But metal detectors will not be used at committee rooms. Sumner said the Capitol Police will provide him and his Senate counterpart, Don Severance, with a description of anyone legally entering the building with a concealed weapon. Then, if it looks like someone who might be carrying a gun is headed into a committee room, Sumner said his staff will remind them about the law prohibiting weapons in places where lawmakers are meeting.
Cunard (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RS aren't just here to verify basic facts, but also to establish notability--that is why we are here. Government agencies do not have independent notability. My colleague Cunard has established that a few references exist, and for me that's enough to support Merge/redirect here (instead of delete), with the caveat, in case this ever comes up again, that a significant number of sources providing significant discussion will be required to re-establish this as an independent article. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Drmies (talk · contribs). I agree with you that the sources I found are enough for verifiability but not enough for notability. Cunard (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Florida Department of Law Enforcement; not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Florida Department of Law Enforcement I am unable to find enough references to show that the organisation is independently notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Lourdes 03:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic technology

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

Non-encyclopedic and ill-referenced essay. Many attempts to focus it over the years. Ottawahitech dePRODed it without addressing the concerns. David Gerard (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 09:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A WP:BEFORE AfD nomination style search shows shows about 6,000 hits in GBooks and over 7,700 hits in GScholar. There is a multiyear conference devoted to the topic, for which the papers are gathered and published in book form by Springer-Verlag, e.g [30]. Among sources found after a brief search include a tutorial at a conference Semantic Technologies: AI Strikes Back and the survey Semantic web technologies in pervasive computing: A survey and research roadmap. Browsing GScholar shows a lot more reliable sources still. This topic seems highly notable per WP:GNG. The article is not well-developed and could use better sourcing, but the potential for improvement is there, per WP:POTENTIAL, and the article has surmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A highly notable topic and an improvable article suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- While "AFD is not cleanup", at present cutting it down to well-cited encyclopedic shape suggests WP:TNT - David Gerard (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mark viking: I'm sure people use this term, but how does this topic differ exactly from Semantic Web (or Knowledge representation and reasoning)? The Semantic Technologies: AI Strikes Back page says that "we introduce the suite of the most popular Semantic Technologies—including RDF(S), OWL, and SPARQL", which are the cornerstones of the Semantic Web. —Ruud 17:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good question. Semantic technology is the general set of algorithms/approaches that use semantic information as part of their processing. The Semantic Web (SW) includes a particular set of semantic algorithms/approaches specialized for representing (semantic) information on the web. Sources like [31] and [32] seem to agree. Examples of semantic technologies that aren't necessarily part of the SW include bioinformatics ontologies like the Human Phenotype Ontology, storage techniques like graph databases and natural language processing work that involves semantic processing. Semantic technologies are a part of Knowledge representation and reasoning, but they are not equivalent--semantics is different, for instance, than reasoning.

If there is a better name for non-SW-specific semantic information processing than "semantic technology", I'm not opposed to renaming or merging with a better article. But the topic is notable. --Mark viking (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term sems to be notable, tho it remains open to question whether this is really a distinct subject ha should be merged. The series of conferences is a subseries of the gigantic Springer series, Lecture notes in Computer science ,and therefore makes a significant claim to notability. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Google books results suggest that it's indeed a field of study. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A bit WP:SOFTDELETE-ish given the low input despite two relistings. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Koos Bothma

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

Fails WP:NBIO, there are some sources covering him, however they are not reliable sources. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 08:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References used in article are who's who lists and college bios. Cotton2 (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 09:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 09:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There are legit claims that notability exists here but even their proponents appear to be uncertain - enough for a "no consensus" but not for keep. Note: The article was moved while the discussion was underway; I've moved the AfD as well as the deletion tag so that the close script doesn't screw up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manu Manzo

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

non-notable singer-songwriter that doesn't meet wp:nmusic jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is shoddy but I were able to find numerous Spanish-language news focusing on Manu Manzo: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37] and [38] plus some few other minor ones. Since I don't know how notable these websites are, it gets really vague. There also was some English coverage but which mostly just mentioned her among others: [39], [40], [41], [42] and [43]. Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: it might be a bit WP:TOOSOON for this artist, as she has only released one EP so far in her career. Nevertheless, the majority of Spanish-language sources Mr. Magoo has found are reliable and have enough in them to create a decent stub article at least. Plus she was nominated for Best New Artist at this year's Latin Grammy Awards. Richard3120 (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per the WP:GNG claims made by Rlendog - "doesn't meet GNG" is a bare assertion and is not enough to contest evidence to the contrary. This article may be renominated for deletion if people feel that the sources given are not sufficient. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Kerdiles

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he misses NHOCKEY but he comes close on multiple fronts (he wasn't a 1st round pick, but was a high 2nd rounder; he hasn't played 200 AHL games, but has quickly reached our old standard of 100; he has some awards albeit none that meet NHOCKEY; he played on multiple WJC gold medal teams, which is not an NHOCKEY criterion but is an indication that he is more than a run-of-the-mill player). As a result, I was able to find enough coverage to convince me he meets GNG, e.g., [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. Rlendog (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Doesn't mean NHOCKEY. Is not competitive to make an NHL roster this season, so is not expected to reach the notability requirements soon enough to justify keeping the article. GLG GLG (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If he meets GNG he meets our notability requirements, even if he doesn't meet NHOCKEY. 13:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  - I don't agree he meets GNG either GLG GLG (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - What is wrong with the sources I provided? Rlendog (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 05:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Bayreuther

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable hockey player, his current situation is such he will not fulfill the notablity requirement soon. GLG GLG (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable fringe minor-leaguer, fails NHOCKEY and no evidence of meeting the GNG beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Article created by editor notorious for routinely defying consensus on notability criteria, resulting in hundreds of AfDs/CSDs/PRODs and his eventual community ban from new article creation. Ravenswing 13:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 05:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Iles

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable fringe minor-leaguer, fails NHOCKEY and no evidence of meeting the GNG beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Article created by editor notorious for routinely defying consensus on notability criteria, resulting in hundreds of AfDs/CSDs/PRODs and his eventual community ban from new article creation. Ravenswing 12:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 05:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Robertson (ice hockey)

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable fringe minor-leaguer, fails NHOCKEY and no evidence of meeting the GNG beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Article created by editor notorious for routinely defying consensus on notability criteria, resulting in hundreds of AfDs/CSDs/PRODs and his eventual community ban from new article creation. Ravenswing 12:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kind of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan O'Donoghue

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Adding a redirect may be done as an editorial action. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Boys and Girls Championship

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

No sources. Bunch of lists, both in table and run-on sentences format. Appears to be pretty much just advertising. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could find few hits for the term, and none that were significant or reliable. I wonder if page creator might like to add a "current events" section to Yarra Yarra Golf Club and briefly mention the event there among others, if they feel it isn't trivial. Yvarta (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Yarra Yarra Golf Club per Yvarta. Montanabw^(talk) 03:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 only keep argument relies on WP:NOTPAPER, but also fails to demonstrate how the related WP:NOTEVERYTHING is met.

On the other side of the coin, none of the arguments to delete are terribly persuasive either. Still, it's hard to see how I could close this as anything other than delete, given the material I have to work with. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Captain America: The First Avenger (toy line)

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

This toy line fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed. I fail to see the importance or relevance of this article. Parsley Man (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Basing my comment on not paper; this is the sort of article that expands our coverage of areas better than a paper encyclopedia would. It should be thought of as appended to Marvel Toys. It's quite a tidy, informative article, certainly not subject to the excesses of some. Hiding T 15:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - like the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Man 2 (toy line), this short lived line won't ever be an informatively substantial article by itself. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yngwie Malmsteen. Seems like there is no notability here; going for a redirect in case someone wants to contest, also because this didn't receive a lot of commentary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duck (guitar)

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

Non-notable individual model of a musical instrument. Not a commercial product; just the specific instrument the artist sometimes plays. All references provided are either dead links to the manufacturer's website, or from the artist's website. This isn't a notable instrument, and the lack of available references bear that out. At best, a few sentences can be moved to the artist's page, but even that is tenuous because of the lack of available third-party, substantial and reliable references. (The "Equipment" section there is completely un-referenced.) Mikeblas (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong redirect to artist If the guitar is only known for being played by the artist, it should be redirected to said artist. Wasabi,the,one (talk • contribs) 12:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If? The first sentence in the article says it's about one specific guitar that the artists owns. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rogue Initiative

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

Not enough refs for notability IMO. And promotional/ Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unconvinced - if it were cut strictly to claims in RSes it would be a paragraph, most of that about investments - David Gerard (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG, also very CRYSTAL, and there just isn't any indication of notability. Production in entertainment is hard to source, period. The nature of the work keeps it more or less out of the public eye, much closer to a "crew" role than a directorial or artistic role. All that being said, they haven't done anything, and until that happens, the whole thing could just as well close up shop tomorrow and it wouldn't make a difference, and a failed venture isn't notable. MSJapan (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's WP:TOOSOON. The only hard info is that the organization has been created and some celebrities are somehow associated with it. There are mentions in the Hollywood Reporter and IGN reporting its creation. When they ship something and it gets reviewed, they'll be notable. Patience. John Nagle (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per WP:PROMO and WP:TOOSOON. There's nothing substantial in the article, per the available sources, apart that the entity exists. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Lourdes 03:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mekayla Diehl

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

I think it is now agreed that winners of Miss Indiana USA are not notable for that in and of itself. The article hypes that Diehl is Native American. However since 0.3% of Indiana's population is Native American, it would not be unexpected that no winners of Miss Indiana USA had been Native American until the pageant had existed for over 200 years. Since Miss USA started in 1951 and not 1816, this does not make her notable. I also do not think the gossipy sources about her body size constitute the type of RS sources we would need to justify actually having an article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If found to not be independently notable, redirect to Miss Indiana USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see an LA Times reference, a CBS News source, a Fox News source and an ABC News source among a DOZEN references! p b p 18:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As aforementioned by Purplebackpack89 there are many sources to this, and this was a historic moment for Miss Indiana. There is no legit reason for it to be deleted especially when her win was historic.Mcelite (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a WP:PSEUDO biography on an individual notable for WP:BIO1E. Consider being praised for a "normal size 4 body":

"Nia Sanchez, the winner of the 2014 pageant, stated that Diehl is no different than the other athletic pageant contestants she competed against. "I felt like this year we had a really healthy class of girls, and that’s what the pageant is about, not being skinny and having the clothes fall off your bones, but being fit, healthy and active. And Mekayla is," she said. "We were at the gym working out together. She was telling me how she does different sports. We all do." Diehl has ignited a wave of positivity encouraging women to be healthy and not go to extremes of having unhealthy habits to be skinny.[5]"

This is indeed tabloid-like content that's not adding value to the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per PBP.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PBP --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the national coverage is on the same story, being a "normal" size 4: Daily Beast. The event (being on stage as a size 4) is what's being covered, not Miss Diehl. The Daily Beast article uses the incident to reflect on society, such as:

Our society has a major issue with quickly categorizing people when it comes to body image. If a girl is too skinny—she’s called out for being a “bag of bones” or slapped with an eating disorder label. If she’s too fat, she’s considered “unhealthy” or “obese” (or worse, “tractor-sized” or “a hippo,” as Oscar-nominated actress Melissa McCarthy was once called). With our obsession for calling out celebrities, fashion models, and the like for being too this or too that, how is it that we’ve now found ourselves becoming enamored with a woman who is in fact thin—just not overly so? I agree—Diehl is gorgeous. And she has a healthy physique not normally seen in pageants that she should be applauded for. But is she “normal”? No. She’s still skinny.

This is still BIO1E and the amount of stories does not matter since they all refer to the same event. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase someone in another AFD - there are so many I can't remember where - how can "one event" cover her winning Miss Indiana USA, a yearlong reign and appearances, competing at Miss USA, and the media that came after it? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All claims of WP:BIO1E against almost all beauty pageant winners are invalid. They win a State or National title, then, separately go on to compete at the next higher level. Equate this to WP:NSPORT where every athlete has to qualify at their preliminary level before going to a major competition. In this case, she won Miss Indiana and then competed in Miss USA. 2 Different events on two completely different dates. For Mekayla, her appearance at the Miss USA event set off a Twitter storm that resulted in coverage by all the major American television networks, interviewed by Elisabeth Hasselbeck on Fox and Friends, The Today Show, Good Morning America, Entertainment Tonight, most of them involving individual on-camera interviews. Trackinfo (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the coverage related to "size 4" are all trivial mentions and lack WP:PERSISTENCE. Wikipedia is not WP:NEWS re: Twitterstorm, but requires a balanced biography, which I do not see here. The sources do not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. And Miss USA is not Olympics for all contestants to be considered notable for just participating. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kind of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Rajkumar

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable person, First AFD was closed as no conesus after I got zero responses. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Illinois USA. MBisanz ^talk 18:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Groat

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

Notability: no significant RS coverage can be found; sources listed in the article provide trivial coverage (10 lines in a local newspaper). I was able to locate another trivial mention: Beauty and the bat. Only claim to notability is a state-level Miss USA win which is insufficient to meet ANYBIO1. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Redirect to Miss Illinois USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 1980 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete winners of Miss USA are not notable for that alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above referenced discussion is taking place here: RFC on creation of consensus standard, with some advocating that (1) state-level winners are not presumed notable, (2) state-level winners are not presumed non-notable; and (2) a special guideline is unnecessary, and that GNG should be used. There's an overlap between these three positions. There aren't really voices for "state-level winners are always presumed notable" so I don't think the outcome of the discussion, if any, would have an impact on this AfD. Thus it may not make sense to suspend the AfD process for this nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- a "Delete" would be preferred since the name is unlikely to have become a valid search term. If someone searches Wiki for it the name would come up anyway. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Illinois USA, no separate notability, fails WP:GNG. MB 22:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aron B

AfDs for this article:

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

The sources are extremely weak, being largely his own website and an interview with him. The award he was nominated for is just not enough to make him notable. Nothing else seems to be either. This article was actually deleted back in 2009. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, not sure what the relevence of all the other afds listed are. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete as it stands, I'm willing to be convinced, but as it stands this is a WP:TOOSOON - David Gerard (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sources are presented. This is WP:TOOSOON and WP:PROMO situation. Being nominated for an award does not count towards notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Colorado USA. MBisanz ^talk 18:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Penny James

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

This article is basically all sourced to James' websites, which is not enough to pass GNG. THe one other source is from YouTube, also not reliable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(addend: Possibly) Redirect to Miss Colorado USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per NA1K, Valid search term. –Davey2010^Talk 22:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Colorado USA -- no sources and only notable (if at all) for one event. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is now a New York Times source. Oppose redirect, that is a list that has no context on any of the listed people, such as the five appearances on the cover of Playboy during its heyday in the 60s. B137 (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the NYT is a passing mention (just one):

Other people want to know how to care for certain plants. Penny James, a sculptor in Shohola, Pa., who uses live plants in art installations, makes four-poster beds out of trees. She needed to know what kind of vining plants would continue to grow indoors.

A mention in the press is not a license for an encyclopedia entry, per WP:NOTNEWS. The coverage needs to be significant and in-depth. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list does give some context. It could be expanded to give more context. The fact that most even current boxes in the list are blank does not need to remain the case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Colorado USA and include relevant material there. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beauty pageant, semifinalist at Miss USA, many, many Playboy covers. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an RFC with possible implications for this article here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#RFC_on_creation_of_consensus_standard.12:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simplilearn

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

PR-like and unconvincing article since all of the listed sources are either somehow: PR or PR-speak, news about funding and partnerships, interviews and other trivial coverage; my own searches are noticeably, not only taking me into last year nearly instantly, but none of what's listed is actually convincing since it's either or trivial. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. See below for bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. See the Advanced search options at right for more options. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

PC Magazine
Santa Cruz Sentinel
VentureBeat
First Post
Deccan Herald
Business Insider
Tech in Asia (Published by Tech in Asia)
VentureBeat

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both Krishna Kumar and Simplified Solutions are covered at bloomberg.com. Unscintillating (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer -Examining these sources above are finding quite a few noticeable articles that are simply the company talking about itself and thus is sourced by the company itself (note the articles contain information about seeking and obtaining funding and investors, somrthing only future clients and investors care about) that's not substantial coverage; what makes ot worse is that is also focuses with PR, something that a company certainly would mention about itself. One of the links (Tech in Asia) is even a specific interview with the CEO talking about the details of his own company. Although this has been relisted twice, this honestly needs a third relist because these Keep votes cannot be given weight given my analysis and the fact they are also simply thinly backing their claims with unconvincing PR-laced sources (sourced they have apparently not considered to actually in fact be PR since it contains exactly that) , thus that's not a convincing. Even though some of these are from known news sources, the information, as noted with my analysis earlier in this comment, cannot be based as a significant source alone if actually simply PR for and by the company itself. Essentially, there's only one source even close to being acceptable, and that's one, the one and only review; which is essentially still not enough, especially if surrounded by an ocean of PR. SwisterTwister talk 02:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per WP:TOOSOON; the company is not yet notable per available sources. Most of the coverage offered at this AfD is trivial or PR-like, such as this passage:

"Simplilearn wants to help employees keep up with the fast-moving, competitive professional world. The online training and certification provider released a mobile application today and announced a partnership with Udemy.

"Simplilearn claims to be the world’s largest certification training provider for working professionals. It offers a mix of classroom and online courses that help people get accreditations and approvals for skill sets they need for their career." Etc.

The most neutral source is PC Magazine, but that's not sufficient to meet SIGCOV and CORPDEPTH. Content is the article is strictly advertorial, such as:

"Simplilearn has trained over 400,000+ professionals across 150+ countries.[2] (cited to the company's website itself)

Rather than waste volunteer editors' time trying to maintain neutrality of this article, I suggest deleting per WP:PROMO and not meeting GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...absolutely I am surprised that this Afd exists till now. The company has an absolutely unbelievable number of reliable sources discussing the company in-depth. I am sure, as NorthAmerica mentions, that any issues with respect to the tone of content within the article can be addressed by copy-editing. Deleting a badly written article is not acceptable when the subject is covered with so much depth in unquestionable RS. For example, "Simplilearn: How a blog turned into a professional training startup" in Firstpost, "Education start-up Simplilearn plans to expand tie-ups with Indian corporations" in The Hindu, "What-next-for-education-startup-Simplilearn" in Live Mint, "Simplilearn recognized as the 'Best Educational Website' by IAMAI" in The Hindu Business Line, "Simplilearn targets enterprises, aims for $50 million revenues" in The Deccan Herald, "With outcome based skilling programmes, Simplilearn redefines training for Indian IT Industry" in The Economic Times, "Startup central: Simplilearn; the career app" in the Television channel ET Now, confirming Simplilearn being India's largest online skilling firm, "Lessons in entrepreneurship: The success of Simplilearn" in The Business Standard, "Simplilearn LMS" in The PC Mag, "Simplilearn to launch Online Classroom Flexi-Pass" in The Economic Times again. Each coverage is very in-depth and has no "PR" written about it. Clear keep. Lourdes 15:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the new sources above are PR or PR like, for example:

Interview with the founder: “We offer courses under 10 different categories and top categories are digital marketing, big data, data science, mobile app development, IT security and project management, and the course fee in India is between Rs 5,000 and Rs 30,000, and in US between $250 and $1000,” said the startup CEO, adding instead of relying on their employers, tech professionals should come forward to learn such professional certification courses to enhance in their career.
Straight up press release: "Simplilearn recognized as the 'Best Educational Website' by IAMAI" (Url contains "Business wire")
Interview with the founder: "Startup central: Simplilearn; the career app"
Etc.

This confirms that the company exists, but it's insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not WP:NEWS nor WP:WEBHOST for hosting company materials. All of this -- corporate plans, interviews with the CEO, awards -- can be found on the corporate web site and an encyclopedia article is not required. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the Business Wire article. But what about articles like "Simplilearn: How a blog turned into a professional training startup" in Firstpost, "What-next-for-education-startup-Simplilearn" in Live Mint, "With outcome based skilling programmes, Simplilearn redefines training for Indian IT Industry" in The Economic Times, "Simplilearn taps the urge to learn and rise" in The Business Standard. On what grounds are you saying that these articles are PR or do not qualify on WP:CORPDEPTH. Please do point out the exact statements within these articles in RS that you feel don't qualify on the said guideline. They are all absolutely in-depth and allow the corporation to easily quality on Corp notability. I'll await your response eagerly. Thanks. Lourdes 06:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Revert to redirect. Ugh, this is a mess. First, the only keep arguments (one from a WP:SPA, the other from a long-time established editor) are based on, This is new, it should be given time for improvement. That's a reasonable argument for an article that's badly written, but doesn't hold water when there's no sources. If, lack of sources because it's too new, was the only problem, I'd be thinking about moving this to draft space. But, the other problem is that this overwrote a perfectly reasonable redirect. If we were to have an article about the album, it should live at Minor League (album), as suggested.

So, what I'm going to do is just revert this back to the point in history where it was a redirect. If nothing else, that will preserve the edit history, should sources ever appear and we want to bring this back. Somebody else can worry about the technical details at that point of how we fork the history to comply with our licensing and attribution requirements. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor League

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

Non-notable album. Article also is unsourced. Natg 19 (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the nominator said "Non-notable album. Article also is unsourced." - Rizhopper (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Page is unsourced. Support redirect to ApologetiX. Meatsgains (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a brand new album, and hasn't had any time to generate notability or reviews yet. Why the rush here? I've seen other articles flagged with {{improve}} for months to give editors time to work. Why was this article nominated within one day of creation? ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or Move without redirect to Minor League (album). At the very least, the title was created by changing the redirect to Minor league which is confusing and not WP:PRIMARY. I'd have moved it had it not been AfD tagged, and would propose moving it even while this discussion is ongoing. Montanabw^(talk) 22:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unreasonable to nominate page nominated for deletion within 24 hours of creation. Adding {{improve}} is a better option, in addition to sourcing. Potatofondant (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Earth United States. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Murrell

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

None of her pageant wins are notable. The coverage is a hodge podge of the Creighton University nesspaper, which especially considering she was a student there is not a good argument for her notability. The other sourcing is from what amount to drum up attendance articles that tend to by their nature inflate the description of visitors, and so just show that the location is good at boosterism, not that anyone is notable. The sources on her journalism career are what one would excpect for a local traffic reporter, which is a news release from her employer, just not enough to establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Earth United States as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. The redirect target is the subject's most recent pageant win. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite there. Redirect per Northamerica1000 - David Gerard (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Earth United States; not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Winchester

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

This information is no longer current or relevant. It should be deleted because it has not been confirmed or updated Stephaniaraquel (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being out-of-date is not a criteria for deletion. Seems notable as a drummer with two major acts, Everclear and Bow Wow Wow.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not individually notable as a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some coverage - The Oakland Press praising his drumming, The Buffalo News also. Drumhead magazine has a brief profile here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Was actually going to close as Speedy Keep as being oudate isn't a valid reason for deletion however the article is in such a shit state and to be totally honest it's better off deleted and rewritten, Notability doesn't look all that great either, If the creator wants to recreate this I suggest they use WP:DRAFT. –Davey2010^Talk 23:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually the creator who nominated the article for deletion :) I agree the article is in poor state - it was hacked down because of a copyvio. I have attempted to clean it up a bit and add some references.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Nebraska USA . MBisanz ^talk 18:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belinda Wright (Miss Nebraska USA)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Belinda Wright (Miss Nebraska USA)

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

It has become obvious that people who won state Miss USA titles are not notable for such. We should probably go with the same rules we have for people who failed in most elections that if they won would make them notable. Sources directly related to their competition in the beauty pageant should not be enough to make them notable, we should have to have sources unrelated to it. However even if we were a bit more lenient the sources here are extremely weak. The only ones that come close to reliable are from a radio station that aims to cover the specific part of Nebraska Wright is from. I do not thing this is the level of sourcing needed to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Nebraska USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how has that become obvious? No guideline has been created. It's all in your head. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a WP:PSEUDO biography on an individual notable for WP:BIO1E, with content such as:

Wright placement is remarkable^{[peacock prose]} because the last Miss Nebraska to ever place was Rebecca Staab in Miss USA 1980 who made the top 12. Wright was awarded a $1,000 cash prize as well as a Flip MinoHD Video Camcorder [product placement] and jewelry from Diamond Nexus Labs [product placement] for being voted Miss Congeniality by her fellow contestants.[3][4]

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Harrington

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

Nothing shows he's notable in the entertainment business and the coverage isn't enough to meet WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 07:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article creator here. I'm very surprised that although the person is claimed to have been a pioneer of various fields, somehow there is very little coverage of him at all, even in Chinese or Japanese sources.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails all possibly relevant notability criteria. None of WP:MANOTE, WP:NACTOR, or GNG are met. Astudent0 (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of his voice acting is in video games so adding the WikiProject to the list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 05:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- He's also been a film actor, so you should consider non-video game sources too.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Czar: look up "ディーン・ハリントン", it seems like there are quite a few Japanese sources.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the top hits—not seeing any reliable sources offhand czar 01:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sadhu Shetty

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is based on few reference sources (unverified). Also I do not see as to why it should be on Wikipedia. No useful information is provided. Consider checking WP:NOTE for the notability of this article. PageImp (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources are good. The rest of the nom seem to be IDONTLIKEIT. Which is irrelevant as the article subject passes WP:GNG overall.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with BabbaQ. -- Pratyush Pratyush 07:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Lots of sources here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Coplon

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

WP:BLP1E applies. See the discussion here for details. The subject is only "notable" (if it's even true) for one article he wrote in 1988 about Ukraine. Half of the current article is based on this single event (it was even more in the past). This page will inevitably be an attack page or a magnet for POV-pushers in this situation. The controversy can be better discussed in an article, perhaps Historiography of the Cold War which focuses on the dispute, not personalities. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:BLP1E at best. The article has been treated as a COATRACK since its inception. While it is still unclear as to where any content surrounding the debated article belongs (or even whether it is genuinely DUE or not), there is no value in retaining a BLP for an author not notable unto himself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the source document's been deleted too - David Gerard (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Iryna Harpy. This article falls short of even WP:BLP1E, in my opinion. I've looked for secondary sources on Coplon's full time activities (sports and memoir ghost-writing) and found nothing. Iryna and Kingsidian also make a persuasive pragmatic case for deletion: removing the launching pad for pov-pushing in this and other articles. Guccisamsclubs (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Comment. Some time ago, I was looking for any RS about this person, but found only a few of them related to the controversy about his publication in Village Voice (now included on the page). So, yes, he is not very notable. However, after looking at his own publications and publications about him, I would be inclined to "keep". My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns, My very best wishes, in that his article "In Search of a Soviet Holocaust: A 55 Year Old Famine Feeds the Right" has been cited by notable historians working in the area of Eastern Europe during the Soviet period, revisionism regarding Stalin's role in events defined as atrocities, and the scope of Russian imperialist intent as evaluated and defined in scholarly works. Nevertheless, I don't believe Coplon to be a key player in academic discourse. As has been pointed out by other editors, the evaluation lies with the arguments of recognised historians, whatever their position is on the complexities of any given event, and belongs in an article relevant to that discourse. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree because his views have been dismissed by reputable historians as nonsense. This does not really add notability. My very best wishes (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notabel American journalist known only for one event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Paik

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

Badly formatted orphan article that makes a claim of notability, but does not provide any sources that fulfil WP:N. In all honesty, this looks like an article that was created as an advertisement and has somehow slipped by multiple admins for the past six years. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The user that created this article was blocked six years ago for spamming/advertising. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 08:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictily advertorial content and no indications of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Chai

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

No indication of notability, nor is any found in a Web search. Gronk Oz (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any coverage. Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 17 August 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) 08:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, couldnt find any reliable sources to back the article. Jethwarp (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MOVIE. I couldn't find any sources at all. There may be some notable films 4m 16s long, but this isn't one of them. Habibur Islam has several other projects lined up, for release 12 September - 23 December 2016, which haven't yet got articles. Narky Blert (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk with World Leaders

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

Nonnotable TV show. Content largely a duplication of BLPPRODed Fu XiaoTian. Ill-referenced. Has been PRODded and deleted once already. I'm willing to be convinced, but this is puffery David Gerard (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2016

(UTC)

Comment although I deprodded because it seems to be nationally broadcast, on reflection am very inclined to vote delete due to the lack of sources unless someone finds good rs, the external links were not helpful. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashay Abbhi

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

Non-notable person. As a poet, Abbhi appears to be self-published and little noted outside of some "puff" pieces in which he was included. As an energy expert, he also appears to be self-published (E-IR being an "open access" article sharing site, and IndraAstra being a site that picked up one of his E-IR article for publication at their site). The various contests that he has won do not appear to be significant. (Certainly not national level literary awards.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NAUTHOR and per WP:PROMO, strictly a vanity page at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems like significant coverage of the subject is missing and it is thus non-notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Athletic Club

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

Fails GNG: Unable to identify any independent, reliable sources in any language offering more than a trivial mention. —swpb^T 13:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep seems too have some coverage in books, some from over 100 years ago. There are probably more that aren't archived on google books. Kent AC's association with various Olympians may also help it meet WP:GNG.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you meant to link to Google Books, not a regular Google search. All the mentions I've seen in Google Books are very insignificant, and do not meet GNG. Can you offer an example of significant coverage of the club? —swpb^T 12:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be it I reckon. I guess there just isn't that much coverage at all.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are, of course, allowed to change your vote. —swpb^T 15:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable club - There's 2 KACs - One in London (which is this article) or one in Luton, There's a few book sources on the name however It's impossible to know which club these books are referring to, Anyway the only news source I've found is the Daily Mirror which obviously cannot be used, Fails GNG anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 23:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 05:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Fatimatuzzahra Napa

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

Educational establishment that fails WP:NSCHOOL. Only sources appear to be a facebook page. noq (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only citation is the Facebook page for the subject. This seems like a clear WP:SPAM and WP:PROMO violation, as often happens when small organizations want to exploit the encyclopedia to create online buzz. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a search doesn't reveal anything other than a Facebook page, so fails WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, having only that FB page as a source. Also, looking at the FB timeline, they post things like screenshots of how they turn up in Google Search and links to this Wikipage. I agree that this seems to be an exploitation of Wikipedia as a billboard. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Jassal

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

Jassal is a non-notable beauty pageant winner. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Universe Malaysia 2016 as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. Coverage is mostly about her winning the pageant, so WP:BLP1E is evident. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All claims of WP:BLP1E against almost all beauty pageant winners are invalid. They win a State or National title, then, separately go on to compete at the next higher level. Equate this to WP:NSPORT where every athlete has to qualify at their preliminary level before going to a major competition. In this case she already has won Miss Malaysia. It is not any more crystal to claim she has qualified for Miss Universe than it would be to claim a Olympic qualifier will compete at the Olympics and would be notable. I did literally hundreds of those cases in the last month leading up to their . . . performance in the Olympics. Trackinfo (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: National pageant winner, will compete in Miss Universe. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see a reference to Elle magazine among the sources. Probably passes GNG. Case that she is "non-notable" has not been proven by nom. p b p 22:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ridge Radio

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article about an "announcement service" radio station which broadcasts on the internet and via the Canadian equivalent of Part 15 (low-power) broadcasting rules. WP:NMEDIA has been tightened up over the years to preclude stations like this from being presumed notable just because they exist -- if this could be reliably sourced over WP:GNG, then that would be one thing, but it's no longer entitled to an exemption from having to be sourced better than this. I was actually the original creator here, way back when our notability and sourcing rules were absurdly loose and not nearly as well-codified as they are today, but I can't speedy it because there have been other contributors in the intervening 12 years. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Internet radio stations don't have any presumption of notability, and its low-power broadcast, according to the article, was apparently through the Ultra-Low Power Announcement Service (LPAS) — a type of station that has been exempt from CRTC licensing since 1993. As Canadian radio stations go, that type of station is as much a Part 15 equivalent, if not more, as the types of VF stations that fall under a CRTC exemption. (Note that while this particular station is a community radio station, the main intent of LPAS seems to be the type of "talking signs" station that would definitely be Part 15 in the U.S.) However, I can't find any trace of this station in the REC/Industry Canada database (TuneIn, oddly enough, appears to associate this station with a VF station, VF7130, but that's not in the database either), rendering the over-the-air aspect even more unverifiable (as if the absence of any CRTC decisions weren't enough) outside of any statements on the station's own website, and I'm coming up short in finding reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per creator. No sources - David Gerard (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move: According to their website, the station continues to broadcast on 90.7 FM. Which means they continue to broadcast over a callsigned station, which brings them in compliance with part of NMEDIA. The station though is no longer the VEK565, but VF7130. The other half of NMEDIA, sources, is easy...well about as easy as the CRTC allows it be. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:39 on August 25, 2016 (UTC)

As with all the other VF stations that have been deleted recently, having a call sign does not in and of itself constitute proof that the station has a CRTC license — most VF stations now operate exempt from the requirement to have a license at all. There are rare exceptions where for one reason or another a conventional license is still required, but those are few and far between and require direct verification in each individual case — but CRTC decisions about this, as either VEK565 or VF7130 and under the ownership of either John McKay or Sheridan College, are nonexistent, which means that this is an unlicensed station. The existence of the website doesn't, in and of itself, prove that the station is operating; the "listen live" button goes 404 instead of linking to a stream, the front splash page was last updated in 2005 according to its footnote, the site is still written depicting the station's move to Sheridan College in 2010 as a planned future occurrence rather than a past one, and a lot of the site's internal links still reveal that the webpage is still sitting in John McKay's personal webspace on Cogeco rather than in Sheridan College's website. And the closest thing I can find to a reliable source about it is an article in the college's own campus newspaper (not an independent source, or one that can confer passage of GNG by itself) which indicates that the station's relaunch under Sheridan College's ownership was still a planned future occurrence as of December 2014 — with no coverage more recent than that locatable even in that publication. All of which leaves us at exactly the same situation as all the other VF stations that have been deleted recently: a license-exempt station whose operational status is unverifiable. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside Country

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

Delete. Poorly sourced article about a radio program. As a syndicated program that was distributed on an ad hoc network of stations, this would be eligible for an article per WP:NMEDIA if it were properly sourced, but the only reference here is the program's own self-published (and deadlinked) website about itself -- which is not a source that can confer notability. But no strong media coverage is locatable on either Google News or ProQuest, which means that we can't hang on to an article just because the thing existed. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Page's only reference is self-published and not much else out there confirming any notability. Meatsgains (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I was unable to find significant coverage about the subject in my searches for sources.
There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Riverside Country to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 05:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robby Bridges

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

Delete. Completely unsourced and advertorially toned WP:BLP of a radio personality, whose most substantive claim of notability is voice-tracking content on a satellite-fed radio syndication service. This would be enough for an article if he could be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but does not entitle him to an unsourced inclusion freebie just because he exists. Bearcat (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 10:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 10:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 10:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another of far too many articles on media personalities notable only in one market.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=3025521 plays a meaningful role in radio programming for the second largest radio broadcasting company — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E00C:7800:49E0:22D2:F446:55F3 (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 2604:2000:E00C:7800:49E0:22D2:F446:55F3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

An employment announcement blurb on an industry trade website, verifying only that he's been appointed as program director of the company's cluster in one radio market, does not constitute a pass of either WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG in and of itself. Even if he were the president of the entire company, that still wouldn't be a notability freebie if there weren't adequate reliable source coverage about him — and even as it is, the role he does hold is not an inherently notable or encyclopedic one. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without any sources, there's no indication of notability Orser67 (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Colorado USA Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talyah Polee

AfDs for this article:

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

Polee is only of any interest for being Miss Nevada USA. This is not enough to make her notable, and the biogrpahy is more of a pseduo biography focusing only on one event in her life. The two previous discussions were both tainted by covering way too many other articles in the discussion. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yet again JPL shows more haste less speed or however the saying goes. Talyah was Miss Colorado USA not Miss Nevada USA which he would know if he slowed down a little. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a sign of failing to assume good faith. The first line is very confusing mentioning Miss Nevada before mentioning Miss Colorado.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: As per WP:REDACT, you have the right to correct the errors in your nomination, although it is best to do so before the AfD is closed. Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator stipulates before nomination, with this diff, that the topic can be handled under our WP:Editing policy without deletion. As per WP:BEFORE C1, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." WP:Deletion policy explains that the talk page of the article, or possibly RfC, is the proper venue for a content argument such as this one. Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination disregards WP:BEFORE in saying that this topic is not a candidate for AfD, makes an argument that the topic is not notable without overcoming community consensus at AfD2 that the topic is notable, and makes no attempt to argue to WP:DEL8. The proper closure here was Speedy Keep NPASR on 1 September 2016. A "Wrong forum" remains a good close. Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: If an article was kept kept (i.e. not closed as "no consensus"), it shouldn't be reopened so quickly. The article passes GNG then and it passes it now. Also trout-slap for not even getting the state right. p b p 03:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as above --- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Strong keep see my comments below about getting the dates confused, however I remain to see what has changed here & as I said, if anything her notability has increased in the intervening year and a bit. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talyah Polee (2nd nomination)) established notability, and the nominator makes no prima facie case for what has changed since then. Note that the previous (2nd) AFD considered only one article, so the nominator's claim about it "covering way too many other articles" is false: it covered precisely one article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The way the second nomination is written makes it on first glance make it look like it is a mass nomination. I still argue we should delete the article because all the coverage is focused on her competition as Miss Colorado USA, so it is one event coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Any editor is free to renom an article as they see fit. The 2nd nom was in January 2015, so I'm not seeing the "quick renom" claimed. Additionally, notability can always be reassessed at a later date - that's part of WP:NTEMP. In this case, I think this is BLP1E, and it fails GNG and the specialty guidelines. We have here an article on a person, and yet we have no details on her other than that she won a few beauty pageants, and all her info comes from those pageant sites (an independence issue). The fact that she was a college athlete, or got a degree, is irrelevant personal "filler" info, not WP:N criteria. The NN pageants she won are exactly that - NN pageants, also set by policy, and we generally don't go below the national level. Being an "also-ran" three times also imparts nothing by way of N - precedent and policy also say that being a contestant, no matter the level, does not presume notability - one has to win. In short, the criteria here are no different than for any other similar area. When that material is discounted, there's nothing else that merits an article. MSJapan (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lede of WP:N states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity..." WP:GNG says nothing about "winning". "Discounting" GNG material because you don't like the content is not policy based. Coverage in reliable sources for being a contestant contributes to WP:GNG notability. WP:Notability is described in the nutshell as attention given to the topic, and all evidence-based forms of such attention are relevant. Unscintillating (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a Google search has revealed more sources not included in this article, I can edit when next at my computer. Article also fails to mention her appearance on Fox reality tv show Coupled which adds to her notability. Also, an apology may be warranted as I had it in my head the most recent AFD was Feb 2016 not 2015 - although I still fail to see how the situation has changed since then. If anything, with her appearance on the Fox show, it's increased. Talyah Polee From 'Coupled' Is The Former Miss Colorado, So She'll Be A Fierce Competitor 'Coupled' is the new, different dating show that wants to woo you Meet Talyah Polee: Could She Be First Miss Colorado to Win Miss USA Pageant Colorado woman prepares for Miss USA competition --- PageantUpdater (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add [51] which is an AP article published in Dubai, UAE, with one of nine pictures being that of Polee. Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I'm with MS Japan in considering this article to be a WP:PSEUDO biography. I also view it as WP:WEBHOST type of content for Ms Polee's pageant wins. I don't see a balanced biography here, and being a contestant on a reality show does not add to notability. Appearing in the news is not a guarantee of being notable enough for a stand-alone article in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MS Japan did not cite WP:PSEUDO. The nomination used the word "pseduo [sic]", but does not add the Wikilink in using the word. In the essay WP:Avoiding harm, the actual section about WP:PSEUDO is concerned about "invading privacy", and argues that where "little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a...biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event". This is not an argument to WP:DEL8, but an argument to merge, or don't split. And in this case, the premise that "little or no other information is available" is inconsistent with evidence from three additional state pageants, the Miss USA pageant covered on Reelz, evidence that this event and Polee obtained AP coverage in Dubai, evidence of a four-year NCAA Division I track career at UNLV, and new evidence regarding eight Reality-TV-show appearances on Fox. None of this is coverage of a "private" individual. At AfD#2, User:Legacypac referenced the essay WP:PSEUDO, but makes the erroneous inference that WP:PSEUDO somehow argues for WP:DEL8. Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "appearing in the news", the policy is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, which has to do with events that are important enough to cover in a newspaper, but in which interest is not WP:SUSTAINED. Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEBHOST states, "Wikipedia is not a social networking service like Facebook or Twitter. You may not host your own website, blog, wiki, or cloud at Wikipedia." Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that appearances on eight episodes of a Fox reality TV show "does not add to notability", is not policy based. According to [52], the show had 1.1 million viewers. According to The Hollywood Reporter, regarding the selection of Polee, Mark Burnett states, "I wanted to find women who are successful in their own lives." Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Colorado USA, No evidence of notability to warrant an article, Fails PAGENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)`[reply]
Comment There is an RFC with potential implications for this article here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#RFC_on_creation_of_consensus_standard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Colorado USA as the subject does not warrant a standalone article. Furthermore, since the last AFD was a year-and-a-half ago, claims of a quick re-nom are absolutely unfounded and should be retracted in the interest of fairness. Lepricavark (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While there appears to be no dispute that the quick re-nom argument was one year in error, there is a related point that AfD volunteers have other things to do than review topics where attention-to-the-topic by the world at large has increased since the previous nom, and where the nominator is on record that the topic is not a worthless topic. A redirect out of AfD is not a binding result, and your post makes no attempt to explain why the topic doesn't warrant a standalone article, nor why the material could not be merged. Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided a sufficient explanation for why the article should be kept and are instead hiding behind the last AfD. I am not going to argue minor points with you while you refuse to realize that the previous AfD is separate from this AfD. The fact that you insist on hiding behind the previous AfD suggests that you realize that you have a weak case. I also see no validity in your statement that "AFD volunteers have other things to do." Nobody is forcing anyone to be here, so you cannot legitimately complain about having your time wasted when you are willingly choosing to use your time here. Lepricavark (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The world at large has taken further notice of the topic subsequent to the last AfD which had already established a Wikipedia consensus that the topic is notable. Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The previous debate does not invalidate the existence of this debate. Consensus is not inherently permanent. Lepricavark (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Previous AfD discussion (#2) was interesting and I agree with many of the arguments presented, such as this comment:

"Reality is that there are many winners in every state of various pageants run by various for-profit businesses (the biggest owned by Donald Trump) every year. The vast majority of these winners have never made the news before, get a few feel good "local person wins award" stories after the win, and go back to obscurity immediately afterward.

"The WP:ROUTINE stories have a predictable formula... Susie Winner is from Springfield and a student at Northern/Southern/Eastern/Western State University where she is studying nursing/teaching/journalism/basket weaving. She likes kittens and wants to save the world. She was excited to win her 1st/3rd/15th pageant.

Occasionally some winners go on to be notable actresses/news anchors/porn stars etc and then qualify for an article.

"Pageants are just a business, with a local focus. Can you name the current (or any) past Miss Your State or can you remember seeing anything about the current title holder? If not, they probably don't earn an article. I can think of plenty of local business people who don't get articles even though they employ lots of people, get local press coverage regularly, have built impressive businesses/buildings and done actual charity work - a heck of a lot more then 99.9% of these women. Legacypac (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)"

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the reference to "WP:ROUTINE", User:ThaddeusB replies at 18:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC) saying, "For about the fifth time, ROUTINE is a section of the event notability guidelines. No matter how many attempts are made to apply event notability guidelines (demanding continuing, non-local coverage) to pageant contestants, there will still be no consensus that they have relevance on the notability of people." He continues,[reply]

I can't tell you anything about 99.9% of all Wikipedia articles - that fact has zero to do with notability. (WP:IDONTKNOWIT).

1E doesn't apply. The guideline is for people that get coverage as part of a news story (I never said anything about it be[ing] negative coverage, for the record), and don't have biographical information about them published. It is not about denying articles to people who accomplished only one thing, but did have biographical information published. If a source is reliable and biographical it is valid. The scope of the source doesn't enter into it. Beauty pageants and other contests are not "events" in the 1E sense. Saying they are is exactly equivalent as saying a previous[ly] unknown author who wins [a] notable prize, or a sports person who wins a big sporting event can't be notable for coverage derived from winning. In other words, it's a distortion of the guideline's intent... [W]hat we have here is biographical coverage spurred by a contest win, not coverage of the contest where the person is mentioned as winning.

The main thrust of the Legacypac comment you've quoted is directed at small beauty pageants, not the large ones such as those (previously) owned by Donald Trump, and is also directed at pageant winners where there was no subsequent national competition such as is the case here. The comment is also directed to winners who "go back to obscurity immediately afterward", which is no where close to relevant in the case here. Unscintillating (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:ROUTINE applies (placements, when, where, etc), but if another acronym is needed to convey the same thing, then WP:MILL is a good one. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I don't think there is enough here for notability. Scope creep (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Colorado USA Firstly, I don't see any reason NOT to nominate stuff for deletion as long as there is a gap of 6 months. This is an encyclopaedia, not a random webhost. Also as consensus changes, notability can change as well. Now coming back to the topic, I don't see anything to suggest that the subject is notable. Essentially the subject competed in multiple beauty pageants, only one of which was national level. Seeing that Miss Colorado USA was the only one which was won by the subject, I advocate a redirect there. The subject doesn't pass GNG. Additionally it should be remembered that GNG is not a free pass to an article: GNG is simply the first hurdle an article needs to pass in order to prevent being deleted. An article can be deleted even if is passes GNG btw. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Record Union

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

Delete. Advertorially toned article about a new online music retailing startup, which is based predominantly on primary sources rather than reliable source coverage in real media -- and the couple of references here that do count as reliable sources aren't about Record Union, but merely namedrop Record Union's existence in coverage of Tidal. All of which means WP:CORP has not been passed. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; article exists solely to promote the business, and has been created and edited by a single purpose account Special:Contributions/Sritz19, so potential for on-going COI exists. Nominator's analysis of sources is compelling, and I'm not finding anything better. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands per nom and above - David Gerard (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. People are basically arguing WP:TOOSOON. If the station ever launches, easy enough to undelete this. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

101.3 FM Milton, Ontario

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

Delete. Article about a radio station which has received authorization to launch, but still has not actually begun broadcasting as of today -- even on the parent company's website, this station is still marked as "coming soon" and linked only to a press release announcing the original license approval. However, it is not rare for a station to receive CRTC/FCC approval, but then fail for one reason or another to launch before its permit expires, so Wikipedia has more recently established a consensus that a new radio station is no longer eligible for an article until it actually commences broadcasting. No prejudice against recreation if and when that happens, but "proposed stations" like this are not allowed to have articles in advance of launch anymore. Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; unlaunched stations do not enjoy the presumption of notability assumed for established/operating stations, and it's too soon to determine if the station has, or ever will, launch (they have until May 27, 2017 to do so, barring an extension). There's nothing verifiable out there to indicate this station is broadcasting yet — it doesn't even have call letters yet! --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... Industry Canada just gave it a call-sign. CJML-FM appears on the Spectrum Data Search when you select "Location" and type "Milton" on page 4 of the results. Looks like it'll be running at 950 watts of power, too. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 21:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having a call sign assigned to it doesn't in and of itself get a still-unlaunched radio station over the WP:NMEDIA bar, just for the record — new stations have crossed that hump but then still failed to ever actually launch. If we could reliably source a definitive launch date, then that might help move the needle here, but the mere fact of having its new call sign assigned to it by Industry Canada doesn't change anything by itself. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I do suggest that if this article is kept that a move to CJML-FM should probably take place per naming conventions (and, if the article deleted but the station launches under that call sign, that should be the article title for the recreation as opposed to the current one). That said, I still stand by my delete !vote barring any other developments, since getting a call sign is generally one of the easier parts of starting a station; I simply wanted to acknowledge that the current article title was likely intended as a placeholder during a period when no call letters were assigned to the station. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine either way... I just thought that getting call-letters means the station is much closer to launching (though I agree, it's not a guarantee it will begin broadcasting). Usually, Industry Canada and the CRTC tend to not issue call-letters until the station is "almost ready" to begin testing or regular operations. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 09:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Soler Barragán

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

Contested PROD. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. MYS 77 ^✉ 01:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, having never played in a fully professional league, and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete currently fails WP:NFOOTBALL as has only played for Valencia's reserve team (not in a fully professional league). --SuperJew (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marko John Albrecht

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

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP, with some résumé overtones, of a film producer. The referencing here is split halfway between primary sources that cannot assist notability at all, and media coverage which glancingly namechecks his existence -- the closest any source here comes to being about him in any substantive way is a piece in the real estate section of The New York Times about how his Finnish heritage inspired him to buy a house with a sauna in it. But having a sauna in your house is not a reason why you get an encyclopedia article in and of itself, and nothing that would constitute a claim of notability here is sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have sources like a New Jersey newspaper that mentions he showed up to see the Stanley Cup on display somewhere, but in a way that indicates that he is no more notable than anyone else in the crowd. The New York Times article is a broad article on incorporating cultural heritage into housing, and not about him at all. Then we have an article from the community college he attended, praising his accomplishments in filmmaking. At least there we have a substantive discussion of his work, but it comes from a source that is using the whole thing to try to attack students, and thus a clearly biased source. Nothing indicates Albrecht is anywhere near being notable as a filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; a weakly sourced vanity page. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valorie Burton

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

This article is only sourced to Burton's own websites. To make things worse, it seems to have had this horrible lack of good sourcing for 6 years. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless RSes show up She looks like someone who should be notable, she is in fact slightly famous ... but what we have here is a WP:BLP without WP:RSes, and we're not allowed to do that - David Gerard (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as a BLP without sources and per WP:PROMO; strictly advertorial content. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Refs added for this "slightly famous" person that lazy editors didn't have time to add some easy-peasy references. Are you serious? Hmlarson (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her work has enough critical attention under NAUTHOR. I added references under publications. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per article improvements. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw There appears to be enough sources to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WTN X Prize

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

There's no refs (here or that I could find) that this award ever actually eventuated, though the original press releases got speculative coverage at the time (2004). World Technology Award just got deleted at AFD. If this has nothing more than a bit of coverage of a speculative announcement, it's not clear it passes GNG. Could redirect to X Prize Foundation, but this specific title gets almost no hits anyway. David Gerard (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reasoning. Besides the BBC article from 2004 announcing the prize will exist, I can find no mention of it. My guess is it was never awarded. Either way, there doesn't seem to be enough to write an article on. Ajpolino (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- entirely WP:PROMO, and appears to have never been awarded, or at least noted by independent RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Awesome Girl

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

Non-notable book by non-notable author. A search for ["One Awesome Girl" thevar] gives the following ghits: the article (and two hits at speedydeletion wiki), two at Facebook, and a mirror of Thevar. Peridon (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find nothing usable to show this book is notable via Google and a look using WP India's search engine doesn't bring up anything at all. On a side note, this is why myself and a few others are pushing for an addition to speedy deletion criteria that would take care of obviously non-notable works like this one, where they're self-published or vanity books with no assertion of notability and the author does not have an article themselves. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I too can find no evidence whatsoever that either the book or the author is notable. I removed self-promoting sentences linking in from Atlee (director) and from Gautham Menon. Narky Blert (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Tokyogirl79. The title is also very unencyclopedic. NgYShung ^huh? 11:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- clearly non notable per lack of independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Neutrality^talk 15:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom; not notable at all from what is shown; poorly written and no RS independent sources. Kierzek (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbolic Building System

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

No WP:N asserted, no WP:RS given and I could not find any by search. Contested PROD. shoy (reactions) 18:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only search result I found was to something not invented by the person who supposedly invented this. Maybe there's a patent out there, but even if there is per WP:PATENTS that's not much of a reliable source. Even if it were, it would be useless as a means to assert notability. Given the entire web seems to have failed to discuss this system, I don't see any way that this can pass any sort of notability test. Given the line "Improvements are still running and final design will be available shortly.", one could surmise the article is written by the creator(s) and is an attempt to promote the system. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a place for inventors to publicise their latest inventions, whether patented or not. It is certainly WP:TOOSOON for an article on this topic; at the moment it is NOT NOTABLE and looks very much like an attempt at ADVERTISING. Deletion is the right option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Coast bus route 700

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

Non notable bus routes, All sources so far are just different numbered timetables, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. (I have no objections to redirecting or merging, Thanks) –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources have been provided other than timetables. Individual bus routes are rarely notable anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete bus routes even list of bus routes are not inherently notable. Article is based on primary sources. Being the only 24 hour service in Queensland is not a claim for notability otherwise we'd be creating articles for every 24 hour bus service in the world. LibStar (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bus routes are not notable, and does not meet GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Switch (ad campaign). Sandstein 17:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Feiss

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

WP:BLP1E as Jimbo Wales notes on the talkpage. All three conditions listed there are accurate. The subject is only covered in context of the Apple commercial. They are otherwise a low-profile person. And the event was just an apple commercial in which they appeared. I note that in one of the interviews she says: It was creepy from the beginning. It was always one of the worst aspects about the whole thing. I was famous but not that famous. Let's remove this biography page and either redirect it to some Apple commercial page or otherwise change the focus from a biography to the Apple commercial. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Switch (ad campaign) per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person who appeared in a commercial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article shouldn't exist - David Gerard (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Switch (ad campaign) per nom. Making it a redlink is just bait to be recreated. Montanabw^(talk) 03:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Switch (ad campaign). The subject has received some significant coverage, such as this The New York Times article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brien S. Wygle

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Only source looks to be an aviation history blog, which I does not fall within the definition of reliable sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a brand new page, only a day old, and needs time for improvement. This is also the first page I have worked on and am still getting use to the standards and regulations of the program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jai Willems (talk • contribs) 01:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn thanks for adding an additional source. I searched Google News and was unable to find any, but after that one I was able to find others. Looks to meet the guidelines to me now. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Homelessness. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Houseless

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

POV fork of homeless, synthesis, only 4 sources, promo for the Bosa Properties X Prize Foundation. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Homelessness I don't think so. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 00:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Homelessness. After searching for the term, I were only able to find fringe blog posts which differentiate between homelessness and houselessness. I were able to find large numbers of actual coverage which all used it as a synonym for homeless like in this example: [53]. Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Homelessness. Per reasons above, plus there was only 4 sources on Google, one of which was a dictionary definition, another was a source that's already being used in Homelessness. Much of this content could probably be used in Homelessness, as this article attempts to branch itself off into its own article to give the false impression that the term "houseless" is more notable than actually is, in that the Homelessness article itself already does cover the "houseless" topic somewhat. —Mythdon (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Homelessness. A quick google search on the difference between houselessness and homelessness gives a few sources that make a meaningless differentiation between home as a sort-of sense of belonging and house as the physical building. Moira98 (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Homelessness. Doesn't really need another !vote to that effect, but I came across it and it seems pretty straightforward. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as G12 (copyright violation). — Diannaa (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misha Fomin

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

Promo with only 2 (improperly formatted) sources. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G12 ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 00:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Actually a speedy delete tag has been added to article (see [54]). Quis separabit? 15:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Vanderwaal

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

Not notable, stub, unsourced BLP. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unsourced BLP? Should have been WP:BLPPROD. Adam9007 (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I recognized the name and found a VERY large number of articles focusing on her. I think the the subject matter deserves an article but the article needs heavy clean-up. Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- However it might be WP:BLP1E, so not sure. Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Extreme media attention, but article needs substantial clean up. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individuals who are not 18 should have to pass very good hurdles because we should be extra vigilant in protecting the privacy of minors. An article that has one sentance that does not even give a reason the subject would be at all notable does not pass that criteria. Not all contestants on America's Got Talent are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Maybe we can revisit this if she wins the competition. Adamtt9 (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TOOSOON. John Pack Lambert raises a very good point, as does Mr. Magoo. We have an essay for reality show contestants (REALITYTV) that points to BLP1E, and she does not meet it. There is nothing else she is known for. All of that is not say she's not talented, because she is--awesomely! However we have guidelines for a reason. One is to protect minors. Even with the admittedly good sources added, it is still BLP1E. John from Idegon (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She could easily continue to get attention for her talent in other forums, and then we would gain the sustained coverage to justify an article. However we cannot assume that the sustained coverage will exist before it actually does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can I suggest a redirect to America's Got Talent (season 11)? That is about what the article currently contains, and it would provide more context. --Ettrig (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#A7. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The LJN Defender

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

Non-notable, unsourced BLP, possible promo. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. No credible claim of significance. Adam9007 (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Adam9007. —Mythdon (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Winners 2012: Start-up Category". Nasscom. Retrieved 27 August 2016.

[2] "Microsoft's BizSpark to boost start-up ecosystem in India". Business Standard. Retrieved 29 August 2016.

[3] "Winners 2012: Start-up Category". Daily News and Analysis. Retrieved 27 August 2016.

[1]

[2]

[3]