Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 September	29 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 delete. Sandstein 07:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Control cable[edit]

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

Currently, there's only one link in this disambiguation, and it's to jumper cable. I could be wrong, but I'm not seeing evidence that control cable and jumper cable are synonyms and "control cable" isn't mentioned at that article (WP:DABMENTION). Therefore, this should be deleted unless someone more knowledgeable on the subject could offer either a good place to redirect this to or possibly create a functional dab if this truly is ambiguous. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did some searching and control cable is a very common term. It can be a cable in a medical prosthesis, toy train, motorcycle, any kind of electrical/computer system, automotive brake, aircraft, automotive heater, helipad lighting system, torpedo, automobile defroster, automobile accelerator, automobile choke, and so on.... I don't see that it is a specific term likely to be searched. These examples were all found with a Google search of books only. Searching within WP finds many similar references, along with a couple where it is used as a synonym for jumper cable between train cars: Push–pull train and Railway Clearing House. Still, the term is rather vague and I don't think it really belongs in a DAB page. I don't think you could make a case that the train jumper cable is a primary usage of the term, nor is anything. So I don't think a redirect makes sense either. MB 01:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a disambiguation page if gives a chance to differentiate control cables. Peter Horn User talk 01:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no articles named control cable. You could write a broad-concept article on control cables, but I doubt the concept is notable as a stand-alone article. Disambiguation doesn't make any sense. MB 23:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Jumper cable is a control cable in the sense that the control of different functions of the locomotive and train are transmitted by it. Peter Horn User talk 01:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The cables on a bicycle brake or dérailleur etc could also be considered as control cables. Peter Horn User talk 00:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's one of those word/phrases that is a WP:COMMONWORD and a WP:BROADCONCEPT that probably isn't notable, as MB says. In my experience, "jumper cable" is not synonymous with "control cable". As far as making a dab, I found SY control cable, Control line, and Aircraft Control Cable Products, which are all really stretching the definition of MOS:DABENTRY. We should get rid of it. — Gorthian (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreating if somebody can find more things to link to than Gorthian did in their valiant effort. A Train^talk 15:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Robot[edit]

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

trivial awards, trivial refs. An award for 100 startups most likely to scale " is an excellent indication of not yet notable Most of the refs are connected with the subject . DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. Also, I taught law office management for 19 years, and wrote dozens of legal articles here, yet I've never heard of them. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though I could be persuaded otherwise if other instances of in-depth coverage appear. This piece on Stanford Law School's blog is all about the start-up; if three or four more like that appear then I'd be satisfied with the depth of coverage. A Train^talk 15:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington per Criteria G11 (unambiguous advertising) and G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) Rebb ing 20:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samved School[edit]

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

Unsourced page with improper title. Possibly a re-do with the appropriate title "The Samved School" assuming there are reliable sources for notability verification? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do not know how to chaing the article name, Pleas help me to chaing this article name from "About Samved School" to "The Samved School". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsundersam (talk • contribs) 08:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Partly done: I moved it to "Samved School," which the sole source appeared to support over "The Samved School." The original title with "About" was clearly incorrect. Rebb ing 08:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you.Pleas give me suggestion to improve this article and pleas tel me that the present content in this article is meeting the Wikipedia polices or not.And how can i prevent deletion of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsundersam (talk • contribs) 09:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Terrible article, but notable subject. And "The" is not usually included in the title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While topic may be notable, the article is its present shape is an ADVERTISEMENT for school and at very first look it gives a hint of copyvio. Some part of it is taken from official website[1]; others I do not know yet. It should be speedily deleted under G11 & G12. Anup [Talk] 17:51, 29 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. Draft can be requested at WP:REFUND, there is no point in doing so if nobody (including the author) is willing to work on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Rodgers[edit]

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

No evidence that she meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO. No substantial coverage in independent sources. Creator is writing a series of articles on voice actors employed by FUNimation Entertainment. Largoplazo (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move to Draft Article is useless if it is just a credits dump. Creator needs to work on it for a while. It has potential given that Rodgers does voice main characters in Haganai, D-Frag! and Absolute Duo but none of this is explained, and there are no sources for any of this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've also not found any news articles, just profiles from anime conventions (copied from Wikipedia and similar sources), or her talent agency. It would be very difficult to write a bio. Searches for non-primaries and away from cast announcements show a bunch of random folks and obituaries. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She's also moved to Portland to explore career opportunities there, although that isn't really a hub for voice acting in North America unless she's doing a bunch of voices by remote or traveling to Vancouver and Los Angeles a lot. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draft Literally no sources and just a few roles. Nothing to work with. Esw01407 (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I may have to cross out move to draft until the creator Ron Lucci shows willingness to work on the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:51, 30 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 Move to draft. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Oxley[edit]

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

Notability seems doubtful. The closest I find to sources meeting WP:GNG are a few interviews. Largoplazo (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move to Draft Since the previous AFD in 2011, Kate starred as Akane Tsunemori in Psycho-Pass which helps towards WP:ENT, but still lacks in any significant articles about her. The article at the time of this comment is still a useless credits dump, and contains none of the content that would make it satisfy notability. Recommend this move to draft or userfy so that editor can cultivate article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draft Some roles, but almost no sources that would be found reliable. Esw01407 (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Ron Lucci. Are you wiling to work on the article as a draft? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft

@Ron Lucci: I'd like to see Kate's article become something more than just a credits dump, honestly speaking. Once we find reliable secondary sources that could help assert her notability, we'll get her article back up. But for now, the article is still too basic for publication. I'd like your input, Ron.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sk8erPrince (talk • contribs) 23:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sk8erPrince, do you want to be the point of contact for the draft? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point of contact? What's that? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just meant to ask if you wanted to do the draft instead of Ron, should he not claim it? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. If the result of this AFD is redirect to draft, I'd love to keep it. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable voice dubber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Musketeer Chess[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability at all. A game made up by someone and posted to a web site and it has also been listed on a couple of other web sites, one of which says "This site seeks to catalog the vast number of Chess variants created throughout history, as well as to nurture the creation of new variants", in other words it is totally indiscriminate, and lists any variant, no matter how notable or non-notable. I can find no evidence that it has received any significant attention anywhere. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unreferenced essay and WP:PROMO. The article is being edited by Special:Contributions/Musketeerchess2016 so COI editing is about 99% certain. The editor in question persists in deleting the AfD template: diff. I requested speedy deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems like notability concerns win out here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Adjutant[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. Unelected candidate for state house seat. No reliable sources. (WP:BLPPROD applies). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of the above. We almost always delete such articles (with the clear exception of US Senate and Presidential candidates). Since the New Hampshire House of Representatives has 400 members, this candidate is very much run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, an unelected candidate for a state legislature does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate — if you cannot show and source credible evidence that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he does not become notable enough for an article until he wins the election. For added bonus, this is referenced only to his own primary source content about himself, and cites no reliable source coverage at all — and even an actual officeholder doesn't get to rest on that kind of sourcing. No prejudice against recreation if he wins his seat next month, but nothing here entitles him to an article today. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unelected politician. That category of biographies has a higher-than-average bar for inclusion, primarily because they are such magnets for tendentious and promotional editing. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Procedural close. User subpages are discussed at WP:MFD. There is already a discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Garyvines/sandbox. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 21:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Garyvines/sandbox[edit]

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

Highly misleading. Written various articles on Sandbox. Clearly Google search helping those article to be shown as Wikipedia page. Most of them being deleted as mere promotions, References are highly questionable for their credibility. Sandbox is listed in Software, IT Management and sub categories as shown as original page in wikipedia but it is clearly not. Light2021 (talk) 21:35, 28 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Avery[edit]

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article about a state bureaucrat, whose strongest claim of notability is that he had a wildlife management area named after him. This is not an automatic inclusion freebie that entitles him to a standalone biography just because he existed, if enough reliable source coverage to get him over WP:GNG isn't present to support it. We already have a separate article about the park, so he can certainly be mentioned there as its namesake -- but reliable sourcing, not the mere fact of his existence, is what it would take to get him a standalone article as a separate topic. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Carlos Avery Game Farm. Was there any reason to bring this to AfD rather than perform the obvious editing action that doesn't require an admin to press the "delete" button? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of any substantive reason to retain the edit history behind the redirect. A new redirect can still be created from the redlink afterward if desired; deleting the article would not preclude that. As well, if somebody actually types "Carlos Avery" into the search bar, "Carlos Avery Game Farm" is already going to come up as the very first autocomplete option anyway, so a redirect wouldn't actually help direct anybody anywhere they wouldn't already have gotten directed anyway. There'd be a much stronger case for a redirect if the redirect target didn't already have his name right in its title — but if the park's name is already going to show up in the search anyway, then a redirect from his own name is just redundant. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why the history shouldn't be kept, so starting a deletion discussion rather than just redirecting is a waste of all of our time. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The history should not be kept because it's unsourced content about a person who doesn't pass a notability criterion. And redirects with prior edit histories as articles often get reverted back to articles again by new editors who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, leading to edit warring when it gets re-reverted back to a redirect and then re-re-reverted back to an article and then re-re-re-reverted back to a redirect again — so there needs to be a much more compelling reason than "it's not hurting anything" to actually retain the edit history rather than deleting the article and then creating a redirect. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument about being "unsourced content" has not added WP:IAR, and WP:DEL7 does not provide for deletion based on an absence of sources in the article. Unscintillating (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Held a senior position in a state government. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a notability freebie in the absence of reliable source coverage about that. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Senior civil servants, especially heads of departments, are usually considered to be notable by virtue of their position in my experience. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ - This amount of information can be safely incorporated in the piece on the eponymous wildlife refuge. I suppose a really serious biographical effort could be made that would pass GNG muster, theoretically speaking, but this ain't it. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmmm, the plot thickens. I see from a cursory glance at Newspapers.com that Avery was also a newspaper publisher and Democratic candidate for governor of Minnesota in 1924. This actually is a bio that can be taken over the GNG bar, defeated politician or not. I might play around with it for an hour to see how that goes... Carrite (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pending further work on the piece by me. Major party nominees for governor are pretty much inevitably GNG passes, I think. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is copious newspaper coverage of this former mayor of Hutchinson, MN and state Democratic Party bigwig. Note also the existence of a booklet on him LISTED HERE, apparently a publication of the Carlos Avery Wildlife Refuge. Biography is expanding... Carrite (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nothing that four hours of hard work couldn't fix. Pinging Bearcat with a request to close this as a Speedy Keep. Carrite (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable, and the article now has adequate sourcing, due to Carrite's more than ten-fold expansion. Kablammo (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My "redirect" opinion above should be read as "do not delete", so needn't stand in the way of a speedy keep if Bearcat withdraws. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coats of arms of U.S. Infantry Regiments[edit]

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

This is a collection of images - a gallery - that should be on Commons, in accordance with WP:Galleries. Previous similar page deletions include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Field Army insignia of the United States Army, as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of micronations, insignia deletion discussion (and the second nom), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of U.S. Cavalry Regiments. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listing, not an article but a image repository as presented which Wikipedia is not; but should make sure all are in Commons for use or even a page for Commons. Kierzek (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. All of these images, produced by the US Gov't are public domain, belong on Commons, and can be linked to various articles via {{commonscat}}.

Chris Troutman (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can see no good reason for deletion of this article. Presents useful information on a notable subject in a systematic way. Perfectly good article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have quoted the text from WP:IG: One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons. .. Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of images. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per the outcomes of the related discussions. This belongs on Commons as it is a collection of images, not an encyclopedia article - it would make a good page there, but doesn't really fit here. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: belongs in Commons. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Lyon[edit]

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

Not questioning the notability of this individual, but article is almost 100% unsourced and WP:OR. Prime candidate for WP:BLOWITUP. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator here seems to have got things the wrong way round. The subject's notability is certainly questionable, but there is no need for an article to be deleted before it can be blown up and started again - that can be achieved by normal editing. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow. An SPA has been working on this article for almost 3 years. I think a COI is implied, but the article doesn't actually seem AfD-worthy. Thanks for trimming the bare links just a moment ago, Zack. Is there a guide to notability for fashion models? This guy isn't exactly prolific, but he's had some high-profile jobs. Jergling (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, as far as notability is concerned, is not whether this guy has had some high-profile jobs, but whether he has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I have been unable to find such coverage either in the sources cited in the article or elsewhere. Have you found any? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. My impression is that all the sources here are employers or former employers. Chances are that he's not independently notable. Jergling (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the author editor of this article has a self declared COI here. I reserve my position on deletion until I can thoroughly review the article, but at present it isn't looking positive. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - having had a chance to wade through the refs he looks like a narcissist turned good guy but the whole article is fawning and promotional. The references certainly don't make the grade and I can see very little that is notable in a reliable source, COI or no COI. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based solely on lacking notability as a photographer. I don't usually comment on actor or activist AfDs but based on what I've read, he may not be notable in any case. The sources are certainly not impressive. The article states he was in a "feature role" in a Robert De Niro film. I'm not sure what a featured role is supposed to mean, but it appears to be a small part. Some 80s coverage as a teen idol of sorts (Tiger Beat!) but again, I'm not convinced any of this passes WP:GNG. I am totally willing to change my !vote to keep if others provide compelling evidence or arguments. freshacconci talk to me 19:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - halfway to notability in a couple of different spheres doesn't add up to notability. Cabayi (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 12:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Lawrey[edit]

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

Fails the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). This is an autobiography (2mororider is Lawrey's handle, website URL, etc) that is sourced entirely to press releases by Lawrey's sponsor, Triumph, or his own website, or press releases by his high school, or his partner charity. None of the sources meet Wikipedia's standards for independence. No sources verify that Lawrey's record attempt was successful. No sources verify that any such Guinness categories, "Youngest Person to Circumnavigate the World by Motorcycle" and "Most Consecutive Capital Cities Visited by Motorcycle" even exist.

The Daily Mirror tabloid and Cambridge News Local World website citations are not credible. the ZA Bikers blog post is a copy-paste of Triumph's press release.

Finally, the ride for which all this is about is a professionally organized tour by Globebusters [2] tour company owned by Lawrey's parents. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, whatever you want to call this, it did seem to get some international media attention. For example, this bylined (short) article from Maori Television, or this interview with a Polish motorcycling website (I'm not 100% sold on reliability there, but it does have a declared editorial staff, so...). On the other hand, this interview with maybe-reliable Brake Magazine all but admits that these aren't "real" records, just things Lawrey made up (to his credit, that is pretty much how Guinness records work in the post-Norris McWhirter era). BLP1E definitely doesn't apply; as a "brand ambassador" for Triumph (plus the entire promotional nature of this event), he's certainly not a low-profile individual. But on the other hand, there's a question of how much of the media coverage exists solely because this is a giant international promotional stunt, paid for by his father's company and Triumph. And then, on the gripping hand, whether there was sufficient media attention for him to be notable even if that's exactly what this all is. I'm not sure I know which side of that line I stand on, although the article as it currently stands is clearly an exercise in self-promotion and would need aggressive culling and rewording should it be retained. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to delete. Upon further consideration, taking a stand to delete here. Because this is a one-event biography, and that single event was so directly promotional in nature, I think there's a very real question about whether small-market coverage of the event is "independent" in the traditional sense. That is to say, would Maori Television or Ścigacz or Brake Magazine have covered Lawrey and his global motorcycle tour without the promotional engine behind it working to ensure that people wrote about it where he went? That answer is clearly no, they would not have. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom. Wikipedia is not an outlet for press manipulation - David Gerard (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is what he should place at his Facebook, not here, as none of it comes close at all for an acceptable article, nor should it be since everything listed is trivial. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am inclined to agree with Squeamish Ossifrage that this is essentially BLP1E. Rlendog (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a dose of salt. This is clearly an attempt to misuse Wikipedia as a platform for self-promotional PR, in defiance of WP:NOTADVERT. Local media can be easily suckered by a press release claiming a distinction (such as being in the Guinness Book of World Records) that isn't actually true, so if nobody can actually locate verification that his name is in Guinness for holding the record in a recognized Guinness record category, the fact that a couple of media sources have uncritically repeated that claim is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's essentially impossible now. Guinness isn't what it used to be (as you can tell by looking at what current print editions look like). Records of the type Lawrey is claiming are typically published in neither their print edition nor their website. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Lawrey's defense, what he's doing is not much different from all the names in the recent 20-40 years on List of long-distance motorcycle riders. The list began with the names of riders who had done pioneering rides of extraordinary difficultly. Later it became well-blazed routes being followed on bikes which are specially engineered for the express purpose. Even riders followed by a support crew in a truck. It's either somebody trying to get other people to pay for their vacation, or seeking fame for the sake of fame, or selling books, videos, etc. People like Emilio Scotto have simply been more expert at getting reputable media outlets to publish long features containing facts and claims whose sole source is Emilio Scotto. There's little aggressive fact-checking in the media because nobody cares all that much. Notable, yet not notable?
I've been trying to figure out how you can define list criteria that run on a curve: early feats meet criteria that become progressively stricter as the years go forward. But for now we just go by WP:GNG for all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:55, 30 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. WP:CSD#G3 -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broke (TV-series 2016)[edit]

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

No evidence that a television show of this name with these specific details actually exists, nor that a network called the "Young Channel" exists. Either a highly-non-notable series, or a possible hoax. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Pretty clear hoax. SPA editor, no notable cast/crew, fake/nonsensical syndication info, doesn't appear on a google search. Nominate at your discretion. Jergling (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This has got to be a hoax/test for a new editor, based on their contributions. — Wylie pedia 07:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Pure hoax! Varun FEB2003 12:34, 30 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. WP:G5 NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump tax evasion controversy[edit]

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

NOTE: PER THOUGHTMONKEY'S HELPFUL SUGGESTION, THE NAME OF THE ARTICE HAS BEEN CHANGED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Return of the King (talk • contribs) 19:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOPAGE. This is an article about quite literally one line in one debate. Clear violation of WP notability and historical value Ergo Sum 18:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We don't need a page for every argument that was brought up in a Presidential debate. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You are wrong. This is not about "one line in the debate."

1. There were the 3 follow up questions afterwards, which the campaign refused to answer. 2. There has been an ongoing controversy about why Trump has not released his tax returns, which is why the quesiton was asked in the first place, and which I plan to add, but despite the stub tag indicating a work in progress you immediately try to delete my article. What sort of welcome is this? 3. There is the 250 million fraud investigation from NY Attorney General which is referenced in the article, and which is a separte tax issue. 4. There is the recent charity tax fraud unearthed. 5. The people have a right to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Return of the King (talk • contribs) 18:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a much bigger deal than the Hillary e-mails, which have their own page, or the Obama birther conspiracy, which has its own page. If you delete this page, I ask that you delete those pages, too, in fairness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Return of the King (talk • contribs) 18:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Why doesn't everyone here help me expand the page, rather than simply trying to delete it? Destruction of knowledge does not mean the knowledge goes away. Is this a case of "I don't like this, this challenges my world-view, I want to delete it so I can feel warm at night"? Improve the page rather than searching for pages to destroy like a vandal in the night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Return of the King (talk • contribs) 18:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Return of the King: It's unfortunate that your entrance into Wikipedia involves an article for deletion. Despite this, please do stick around; it's nothing personal and this can be a fun place. Nonetheless, the article is in clear violation of several Wikipedia policies, as I've described above. The purpose of these policies is not the achieve "fairness" in the political arena, but to be prudent in Wikipedia's encyclopedic purpose. That being said, there's no need to lob accusations at other editors of bias in editing. This AfD forum is intended as a place for civil discussion of matters in which editors are expected to remove themselves from their own personal, political, and other interests. Ergo Sum 18:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. My point remains: this is not really about one line in the debate. There was a reason the question was asked in the first place; it is historically unprecedented for a candidate to not reveal their returns, and there are several independent investigations going on into improprities. I mention the liberal pages because it seems to me that the Trump controversy is as worthy of a page in an encylopedia as these other controversies, which turned out to be much ado about nothing. Even then, if the Trump tax issue turns out to be bogus, there was nothing wrong in having the page, in that there are pages about controversies on other political figures that also turned out to be nothing. And I smell blood in the water here. I'll eat my hat if Trump isn't a tax dodge and I have plenty of sources that I think back the claim that this is notable event receiving scads of coverage.

Note I moved the page to Donald Trump income tax controversy. In case you don't know, tax evasion has a specific meaning and is not the same as not paying or owing income taxes. To me, WP policy on living persons (WP:BLP) required an immediate action. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the move. I did not know this.

Keep or Merge There should be an article on the whole topic of Mr. Trump's income tax returns as related to his presidential campaign. If so merge this one there. If not put ~~some of~~ the other related material here.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This: Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016#Refusal_to_release_tax_returns is where the info is now.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I just want to note for the benefit of Return of the King, who made the original page and is also posting on the AfD. You expressed a concern that "the people have a right to know"... that's the media's job. The question here is whether this issue merits an entire Wikipedia article. I don't think that it does, for the reasons that the AfD OP cited. We can't get caught up in making Wikipedia pages for every political firestorm that comes down the pipe. You implied that the opposition to this page is coming from Trump supporters but I can assure you that I'm not a Trump supporter. I just question whether this mandates its own separate page. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This implication about anyone's politics was somewhat overwrought and misguided. However, to rephrase the point I was aiming for in a neutral way, I still think that this is worthy of a page for the same reason that the Obama Birther conspiracy and the Hillary e-mail conspiracy was. Namely, all three controversies have received a lot of independent media coverage. It only got asked about in a presidential debate with 80 million watching because it's important and a lot of people care about it and have written about it. I know the article presently needs work, but I don't have too much more time to spend on it for now, so I'd ask other people to try to help and contribute. Without stating it politically to mean that others are politically motivated if they oppose, I do think this is a controversy of similar importance to other political controversies that have their own pages. There is really a lot out there on this and it has been covered for months. Trump is the first candidate for years not to file returns, and there are multiple elements of the controversy that are just being discovered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Return of the King (talk • contribs) 18:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To reiterate, Wikipedia articles are not deleted in accordance with how they relate to the balance of political views on Wikipedia. They are kept or deleted in accordance with encyclopedic policies. Whether someone feels that the controversy is worthy of inclusion is irrelevant; only objective notability, such as reliable media coverage not from opinion outlets, standing the test of time, etc. is relevant. My personal views on the controversy are wholly irrelevant, just as the inclusion of some other articles on controversies affecting politicians are. Wikipedia does not maintain equal coverage; it maintains encyclopedic coverage. Ergo Sum 18:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, fair enough. However, I think you'll find that there has been media coverage of Trump's tax returns in major newspapers nearly every day of the last 365. This is not an ephemeral debate phenomenon; rather, the question was only repeatedly raised during the debate with 80 million watching because it has received so much media coverage and public interest already. Would the question have even been brought up during the debate if it was as non-notable as you claim? I assure you, there are tons of sources. I will try to add more when I have time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Return of the King (talk • contribs) 18:57, 28 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) 05:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles H. Lyons[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a person whose only substantive claim of notability is that he was "the first 18-year-old in the United States elected to a town or city position" and that he was later elected president of an organization. Neither of these are claims of notability that confer an automatic inclusion freebie on a person just because they exist, if the reliable sourcing needed to get him over WP:GNG for them isn't there — but what we have here for sourcing is his own primary source website about himself, a directory of video clips of him giving soundbite on the news, and a single news article about him being honoured by the town council that he served on. This is not the depth or volume of sourcing that it takes to get someone over GNG if they don't have an automatic pass of any subject-specific inclusion criterion. (Also, the article was created by an editor with "lyons" in their username, so there's a possible WP:COI here too.) Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For all the above reasons. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed with nominator.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Age at election to a non-notable level office does not make one notable. This is not a trivia collection but an encyclopedia. Beyond this our sourcing on the claim he was the first 18-year-old elected to a position is the staff bio from the school where he was superintendent. This is not the type of 3rd party source we would need verifying the claim if it was something that was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 06:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Applozic[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a software product directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Sources are questionable and some of them are profile created on website. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. Light2021 (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - blatantly promotional text, bad sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Anup [Talk] 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- product brochure in the form of a Wikipedia article. WP:PROMO applies, while the subject shows no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 29 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. spamming his own non-notable books Jimfbleak (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Esbardo[edit]

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

Autobiography of a non-notable author. All of Esbardo's books are self-published with no signs of any significant notice. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:41, 28 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Princess Movie[edit]

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

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

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

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:NOTFILM. Prime WP:NOTYET candidate. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject meets general notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.233.112.12 (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was deleted repeatedly in the past at The Secret Princess, resulting in the article getting salted. There was also some sockpuppetry that occurred around the article via the user DrexMafia. It looks like this did release since 2014, so it wouldn't qualify for speedy deletion - however notability does seem to still be very much in question. I'll also note that the synopsis is copyvio from here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So far all I'm finding are very short, WP:TRIVIAL articles that primarily post pictures and use the plot synopsis to make up the majority of the article, like this and this. These might be RS in another situation, but so far I'm not finding a whole lot to show that it would now pass notability guidelines per NFILM. Most of it is just brief, trivial mentions of it screening. WP:ITEXISTS at this point in time (meaning it released) but that doesn't give notability, nor is it notable because of the people starring in the film. The claims in the article are all suspect, as they are not backed up by any independent sources. Given that there was a very concentrated effort to promote this film and its production company in the past, that makes them even more suspect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. While this seems like it should have more coverage given the people in the film, there still isn't enough coverage out there to justify this film passing WP:NFILM. It exists and has notable people in it, but neither of these things give notability. The broad majority of sources that have written about this film have only made brief, trivial articles - and some just outright reprint the press releases like this one. I'm aware that it's difficult for African films to gain coverage, but it's still necessary and there's not really anything here to suggest that offline sources exist or that if they do, that they're anything different from the sources I've found thus far. The award listed on the page is not the type that would give notability on Wikipedia, either partially or completely. This is not a knock against the festival, it's just that there are so many film festivals out there that the festivals and/or awards have to be independently notable in order to give any sort of notability. Most film festivals don't give this level of notability. It also doesn't help that the only source I could find about the festival shows that it won second place - not first place like it was implied in the article. I've since changed this. Being a runner up or in second place doesn't really give notability on Wikipedia even if the award was notable - typically notability is only given if the person/film/etc wins first prize. Since this is the fifth time that someone has tried to create this article, I'd recommend salting this entry as well to deter recreation before notability guidelines are met. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This film is notable and a milestone in African Cinema. There are very few African animations on wikipedia and more should be created and added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:51F5:7B00:24DB:9462:63F5:B168 (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You must provide coverage to show where this film is notable. Also, while it'd be nice to have more African animated films on Wikipedia, these films must still pass notability guidelines and they cannot remain on here simply because there aren't many on here and that it'd be nice to have more coverage on the various films. That's just not how Wikipedia operates. If you can show proof of coverage then that'd be different. I'm aware that some publications don't publish their work online, but there has to be something that can be verified and is an in-depth, independent RS in order for the film to pass NFILM. Saying that it should be kept for this or that reason without providing RS to back it up (that would pass muster at RS/N) doesn't really help much here, especially given that there was a concentrated effort to promote this movie on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I must also note that if any of these IPs are DrexMafia, please be aware that this would be seen as block evasion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: KingstOOn festival is a World bank event. If all the references provided in the article is true then this is nothing but public information and not promotion as suggested. A simple search on google will turn up lots of articles and videos on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:51F5:7B00:24DB:9462:63F5:B168 (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You would essentially have to provide coverage to show that this event is notable, enough to where it would warrant its own article. Raw Google search results cannot establish notability for an event because the results could be predominantly primary, be junk hits, or be some other type of hit that wouldn't be considered a notability giving reliable source on Wikipedia. Basically you can't just argue that something is notable (or conversely, non-notable) based on the specific number of Google hits for a search term because any search process will bring up non-relevant and non-usable results, regardless of where you search but especially with Google. See WP:GHITS for more information on this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep: This film has over 440 votes on IMDB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsna (talk • contribs) 08:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

IMDb votes do not give notability on Wikipedia and the site isn't even considered to be a WP:RS on Wikipedia for even basic, trivial details, unfortunately. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vote of known sock struck --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just realized that the article creator's name is nearly identical to a confirmed DrexMafia sock, NSNAA. I'm going to block them for block evasion and I'm also going to open up a SPI for the IPs. I'd recommend leaving this open for the time being, though. It looks likely that this will be deleted and this will help prevent future attempts at recreation, as the past AfD only pertained to the film in its unreleased state. This AfD closing normally would cover the film as a released piece. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current sources fail WP:NF and my searches found nothing helpful. I would be happy to reconsider if an in-depth review is found in a reliable source. The 2nd place 'award' is not sufficient. Gab4gab (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EaseUS[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a software product directory. They should have submit their Company brochure instead. Just because covered as Product review websites or get popularity on non-notable media does not provide any significance. 1000s of startups happens every day. Light2021 (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional format (reads like a brochure), promotional sources (they put its download.com page as a "review"!) and no evidence of notability - David Gerard (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as this is advertising to the max, none of it is anything else but listing its services, clients and business information, all PR; the sources of course are also not substantial, which is not surprising, as this was clearly planned to be a business listing and only that. SwisterTwister talk 22:04, 28 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, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DCHQ[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a software product directory. Light2021 (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - sources not good, closest to an RS is Venturebeat and they run almost anything sent to them - David Gerard (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and this is honestly tickling at A7 material as the only things here are the barebone thin claims of "their software being used", nothing else here at all, I mean literally, comes close for substance (sources are trivial); this is business listing material, and that's exactly what we delete. SwisterTwister talk
Comment This company was acquired by a company named Gridstore, which changed their name to HyperGrid after the acquisition. Details, details, details, details, details, details. (This is not a vote.) 2602:306:3A29:9B90:892B:720A:D76D:82AE (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly too soon. Need to last more than a year! Maybe some day a combined article including this kid, Gridstore, HyperGrid, SuperHyperGrid, MetaSuperHyperGrid, WhateverTheyCallThemselves etc. but not this one. W Nowicki (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is literally no claim of significance here. Coverage in RS is almost non-existent which doesn't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graebert[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Nothing significant about it. just because it has niche segment to deal in and its old does not make it appropriate for Wikipedia. Else Wikipedia will become a software product directory. Light2021 (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is there a single RS to be found there? This is an advertisement - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PR for a company whose environment would be PR and that alone, the sources themselves are not only PR but formatted as PR therefore entirely unacceptable; this is quite honestly speedy material if not for the thin claims of "first" tossed here and there, advertising and that's exactly what is deleted. SwisterTwister talk 22:05, 28 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, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WebSite X5 Incomedia[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Nothing significant but another local builder. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a software product directory. Light2021 (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of notability - David Gerard (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a WP:DIRECTORY listing only; product brochure in the form of a Wikipedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vatebra[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this. Search articles merely a press release for renamed of company. Light2021 (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete promotional text, no good sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam; clearly created by someone associated with the company and the only purpose is to promote the company. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Post Malone discography. MBisanz ^talk 19:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stoney (album)[edit]

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

The PROD was reverted, and per WP:NALBUM, "[a music] album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label", especially a page with only one reference. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 15:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 15:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are other sources that can be added.[3][4][5] BigGuy88 (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would like to point out, that AFAIK, the track order shown is not mentioned in any of the references here, or in the article itself. I would also accept having this page be redirected. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, BigGuy88's sourcing shows this is a WP:CRYSTAL - one source apologises for it not existing yet - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect, Agreeing with David Gerard. Also I would rather have the page be redirected to Post Malone discography rather than being deleted. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Post Malone discography per WP:TOOSOON; not notable yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Zappelli[edit]

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

NPOV issue Furfurel (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I request the deletion - as well as the protection against re-creation - without having tried beforehand to better the article by contributing to it. I don't want to create content for this article in order to first avoid any potential conflict of interest WP:COI. Here is the reason why: I act on behalf of Mr Zappelli. I receive a compensation for this.

I want to respect la behavioral guideline about assuming good faith. Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith I am therefore accusing nobody. Indeed, the informations I currently own do not allow me to claim that there is any intention to harm. Nevertheless, in effect, in fact and according to "the subject of history" Mr Zappelli himself, the article is harmful. I want to emphasize the fact that it is handicap when it comes to Mr. Zappelli's current professional activities.

A lack of encyclopedic rigor makes this article fail to respect the "Neutral point of view" policy WP:NPOV, one of the five Wikipedia pillars. WP:5P2, by giving it a negative tone. This article also harms Wikipedia itself by its lack of encyclopedic quality.

You can read more in details about this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daniel_Zappelli#NPOV_issue

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

Source: "Biographies of living persons" policy, WP:ALIVE

Thank you. Furfurel (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 15:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this looks like someone trying to get rid of the article about their boss because of a misinterpretation of the conflict of interest and BLP policies. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is clearly notable, and clearly a public figure. Any neutrality issues can be resolved in the usual way, by editing and talk page discussion, but the fact that he resigned under a cloud is reliably sourced, so needs to be covered here just as his positive achievements should be. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is clearly very notable. We don't get rid of an article merely because its subject doesn't like it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I already noted on the article's talk page the first time this was attempted, Wikipedia does not give article subjects the right to veto our having of an article about them. In the case of a low-profile figure whose notability claim and sourceability aren't particularly strong, we can take the subject's wishes into consideration under WP:BIODEL — but even then, there still have to be other reasons why the article might be deletable besides the subject's own wishes alone. And a person who has a clean pass of an inclusion criterion, such as a high profile state-level holder of a notable political office, definitely gets no special rights to control the existence of an article about him. If there are neutrality or BLP issues here, they can be resolved through the normal editing process — but Zappelli does not get to unilaterally decree himself off limits as an article topic. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat and all above. The subject here is clearly notable, everything else here involves article content, and can be dealt with through the usual channels. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all who contributed to this discussion. Furfurel (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G7 by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Pearce[edit]

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

It seemed like I should be able to establish notability for this person, but I haven't been able to. The two books that had been described as "top-rated" before I edited the text get 17 and 25 Google hits respectively, so they can't be very well known. I searched for "sarah pearce" "location location location" and "sarah pearce" "save our home" and got 28 and 14 hits, respectively. Even the show Save Our Home on TVNZ itself gets only 24 hits for "save our home" tvnz, so it can't be a notable show. From all these searches, I've mustered up significant independent coverage in just one reliable source, here. So, I'd have to say she fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Largoplazo (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 15:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 15:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 15:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, but perhaps a local can turn up something better ... - David Gerard (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Promotional. Article created by SPA, strongly suspect COI. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means and this should be deleted as quickly as possible, she's certainly not convincing as an author, there's no major publications or library holdings, she's certainly also then not notable as any other capacity. SwisterTwister talk 18:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, she's in Auckland, so I checked the Herald, found a mention of her as a "Speaker, coach and trainer" [6]. It does not suffice.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please delete immediately — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenharper (talk • contribs) 21:57, 29 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Blankenship[edit]

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

Basically an actor with no significant career. Only minor and uncredited roles. The subject fails WP:NACTOR (#1, #2, #3). No significant coverage in reliable sources on the web, only found user generated data on sites like IMDB which are not acceptable. Fails WP:N. Jim Carter 14:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Gbawden and Pichpich: who previously prod'ed and endorsed deletion of the article. Thanks! Jim Carter 14:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plainly fails the basic notability test. The article notes her role in Scary Movie 5 but IMDb lists that role as uncredited. The other film mentioned is a non-notable straight-to-DVD release so she also fails WP:NACTOR. Pichpich (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 15:16, 28 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pouya Afshar[edit]

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

Fails GNG: Extremely trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources —swpb^T 13:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 14:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST The four sources listed in the article are all dead, and I have not found anything else that resembles critical attention. Mduvekot (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Gamboa Calderón[edit]

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

Fails GNG: Unable to identify any demonstrably independent and reliable sources offering significant coverage. —swpb^T 13:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In a google search doesn't appear to have strong enough sourcing to justify a keep.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Most sources on this individual are in Spanish and located with his name plus "Coopeagri" to weed out rrelevant results, but there is a fair bit of it, see search. I found two English language sources:
- http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/en/farmers-and-workers/coffee/coopeagri (On CoopeAgri)
- http://southerncostaricanews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=205:coopeagris-coffee-history-continues-to-grow&catid=69:southern-news

I'd suggest pinging the Costa Rica and Cooperatives wikiprojects to have their editors do additional review. Folks like this from the Global south often present challenges for verifying content, but are in their own right, quite notable. Montanabw^(talk) 00:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, no sources offered by Montana are anywhere near valid for demonstrating notability:
- ~~http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/en/farmers-and-workers/coffee/coopeagri~~ About the business; doesn't mention the subject of this article at all.
- ~~http://southerncostaricanews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=205:coopeagris-coffee-history-continues-to-grow&catid=69:southern-news~~ One totally trivial mention of the subject.

If anyone else wants to search, it helps to know how to use Google. A focused search string like "Claudio Gamboa Calderón" Coopeagri -wikipedia is a good start for eliminating irrelevant results, and it reveals how utterly unnotable the subject really is. The zero results in a news search is also a good clue. —swpb^T 13:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unsourced bio and vanity page and/or memorial. No convincing sources have been presented at this AfD. PS -- I notified the two projects as suggested. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches are not finding anything actually substantial aside from a few mentions, and there's something nothing improvable, let alone convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 19:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blac Youngsta[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Trivial paragraph-long mentions in industry sources and on gossip websites. One song, Coordinate, did chart, but Billboard credits "Travis Scott featuring Blac Youngsta". A guest vocal does not lead to notability per WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:MUSICBIO does not state that a guest vocal does not lead to notability, false statement made by Magnolia677. Xboxmanwar (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of good sources from sites like HipHopDX [7] [8], Vibe (magazine) [9] [10], and XXL (magazine) [11] [12] can easily be found online. All three are listed at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. He also has coverage beyond music-only news sources: [13] (WATN-TV), [14] [15] (The Commercial Appeal), [16] (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution), and [17] (The Daily Caller) BigGuy88 (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest these sources only confirm that this article should be deleted based on a lack of notability and reliable secondary sources. Allow me to comment on each of these "good sources":

[18] - two paragraph promo; no biographical content.
[19] - two paragraph promo; no biographical content.
[20] - primary source (interview).
[21] - primary source (interview).
[22] - vacuous, National Inquirer style commentary about a "beef" this person is having with Young Dolph. Hopefully, "Dolph you a bitch, you a soft ass n*a, if you got a problem, say you got a problem" cannot be reasonably interpreted as meaningful biographical content.
[23] - this is a report of an encounter this person had with the police. These are reported in the media thousands of times each day across the country; it does not make the person reported on notable.
[24] - a short biographical article in a local newspaper.
[25] - a short biographical article in a local newspaper.
[26] - a paragraph-long review of one of his songs.
[27] - another report of his encounter with the police; no biographical content.
[28] - dead link. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreeing with BigGuy88, plus I found more interviews with him, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Xboxmanwar (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xboxmanwar is indeed correct, this biography is rich in interviews (a primary source) and thin on reliable secondary sources, which is why is should be deleted. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", per WP:BASIC. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that User:BigGuy88 has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Poor article but that's not a reason to delete the charting with a guest vocal and the reliable sources shown by BigGuy make him pass GNG. It needs work, not deletion. The person who found the sources being banned doesn't matter either, the sources still exist. GuzzyG (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (music) specifically states: "meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Rather, these are rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is listed at articles for deletion". Charting with a guest vocal and a paragraph or two in a local paper does not bestow notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Zekavičić[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NHOOPS includes a provision of "or a similar major professional sports league." He played six games in the Polish Basketball League. So I think the question is if the PBL is high enough to qualify as a major professional league. The wikipedia page says its professional and their champions have historically, including the year he played, automatically qualified for the regular season of the Euroleague. To me, that is enough to say he meets the presumption. RonSigPi (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The PBL doesn't specifically meet the guideline and I don't think it is accurate to say that every player who has ever played even one game in the league should be presumed notable, as is generally true of the leagues specifically named. If he played in Euroleague games that would be a different matter. Best bet would be to prove that this subject meets WP:GNG, as this supersedes any sport guideline anyway. If it can't be proven he meets GNG then the article should be deleted. Rikster2 (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NHOOPS and a google search didn't yield anything more than databases and youtube videos. RonSigPi (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ALONE[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, as tagged in September 2014. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noted by several independent news organizations in references. South Nashua (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see enough RS featuring non-trivial coverage of the organization in the current article, for example Irish Examiner and The Journal. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough non-trivial coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG. (There are however article issues that need addressing if kept. Esp those relating to TONE, NPOV, etc.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filth City[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced article about a television film and web series, which was only in the post-production stage at the time of creation and still has not verifiably been scheduled by the host broadcaster or actually premiered on the web apart from one single advance preview episode on YouTube. This is based on just two pieces of reliable source coverage about it, of which one is local coverage of a scheduling incident in the city where the project was being filmed -- and all I can find on a Google News search is brief acknowledgements of its existence as a project in development, and nothing that indicates its actual debut is imminent. So there's no WP:GNG claim here yet either. In addition, this article was created by the film's own producers, in defiance of our conflict of interest rules. No prejudice against recreation if and when it gains coverage by actually airing, but projects that are still in the production pipeline aren't granted an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NMEDIA unless much more substantial sourcing can be shown than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance, and no RS can be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D4Science[edit]

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

All the article's sources are affiliated with the subject. I had a go at finding independent reliable sources but couldn't locate any that didn't seem to be reprinted or retooled press releases. In the absence of any acceptable sources I'm assuming the subject doesn't pass WP:GNG. Psychonaut (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed with nominator♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it seems the common paradigm of EU research projects: they think of a cool sounding acronym, get one of their grad students to write a promotional Wikipedia article, then go through the money in a couple years and do it again with a different acronym. Really wish they could instead work on a smaller number of more sustainable articles, like, perhaps European Grid Infrastructure. Just found a few more of these, sigh: Virtual Digital Library Hybrid Data Infrastructure for example. W Nowicki (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The deletion proposal is not substantially contested. Sandstein 07:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imogene Ruth Albritton Mayer[edit]

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

Supposed philanthropist whose notability is their charitable giving. Unfortunately the only source for this is a letter to the editor. Letters to the editor are not WP:RS. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you search under "Imogene Ruth Mayer," more information comes up, mostly relating to a scholarship in her name. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 28 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 per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Pennefather Thomas More[edit]

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

Non-notable Varun FEB2003 12:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

tentative Keep. One of his book has 139 worldcat holdings. 120 of them outside New Zealand--for a book about local New Zealand scenery, this is quite good, considering that WorldCat includes very few NZ libraries. Further search is needed, and should have been done before making this nomination . DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Insufficient discussion for consensus. Sandstein 07:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moritz Neumüller[edit]

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

no proof of notability no refs could be a hoax too Varun FEB2003 12:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rather than speculate about a hoax, did the nominator conduct a WP:BEFORE check, which would show for example the subject's University of Vienna homepage? AllyD (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. , probably speedy keep , as what is sjhown by the publications clearly meets the standards for notability. DGG ( talk ) 08:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Subject exists, but I am not sure he passes WP:PROF. His works in GScholar seem to have only several citations each; I am not sure if his impact on the field is significant. Ping User:Randykitty. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 28 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. Sandstein 07:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomading[edit]

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

Maybe he wanted to do something in good-faith but this is pure nonsense and gibberish to me, written as if writing its advantages, disadvantages and why it came about, I would ask for CSD but cant find a criterua Varun FEB2003 11:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. incomplete and needs work, but the definition in the first sentence is perfectly clear, and there seem to be references. DGG ( talk ) 15:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are you seeing references? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google hits alone are not a good measure of notability, but "co-nomading" and "conomading" together turn up less than 200 hits, including Wikipedia clones, and none of them are remotely reliable sources. Remote work is already an article, and it's possible there's a notable subtopic along the lines described in this article, but this is definitely not it. Of the links in the article, one is for an event that took place the day after this article was created (what a coincidence), one is neither reliable nor even mentions this term, one would be reliable (HBR) but again doesn't mention this term, and the other is a company website. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears in current form against guideline/policy (WP:NOTDICT) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:06, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henriett Koósz[edit]

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

I don't see where this person passes GNG notability. Maybe a 15 minute of fame bio, but mostly just passing mentions in articles. Certainly does not meet Olympic Project Guidelines or Tennis Project Guidelines or WP:NSPORT. No gold medals either. There's been a rash of these bios created lately. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable sportsperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a number of articles about her in German, and while I admittedly don't speak German, rough English translations (not to mention the amount of coverage that came up from an English-language search engine) suggest that she meets the GNG. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all convinced with those sources. 1. I'm not sure what this is. It's in a piece called Blogging World of Women and pairs up 6 different ladies from different walks of life. 2. is a bio by the Paralympic committee, like they do with most athletes. 3. is simply a match description. 4. is actually a real piece that is the first we've seen that is even remotely good. 5. Just a passing mention. 6. is just a score. 7. is just a score. Not enough to make her a notable personality to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG particularly considering the context. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what is meant by "context" since GNG could care less about context, but I don't see it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my review of the sources listed above. The subject easily meets BASIC, and in my opinion GNG too. Lourdes 05:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not enough for GNG. Fyunck(click)'s analysis of the sources is spot on. Trivial mentions, routine sports coverage (scores) and a directory listing does not help to satisfy GNG. This is literally the only somewhat good coverage I found. Per WP:WHYN, we definitely don't have enough here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talei Burns[edit]

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

Delete. Relist following a no consensus because no participation closure on the first nomination. This is still a WP:BLP of a musician with no strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC, which is sourced almost entirely to Facebook, Blogspot and YouTube rather than to reliable source coverage in media. Bearcat (talk) 06:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - a basic WP:BEFORE finds only one RS even in local coverage - David Gerard (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unreliably sourced BLP which is not acceptable. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tarikh Aliyev[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the notability guidelines due to lack of reliable sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO with a doze of WP:TNT. A badly written and formatted vanity page; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. But due to lack of participation, no prejudice against re-nomination. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Goulart[edit]

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

Not a notable actor plus very scarce sources and info generally not verifiable Nyanchoka : talk 2 me 17:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REASONS TO KEEP THIS PAGE ACTIVE:

- The artist is credited in at least three major productions from huge Television Networks, with reliable references already added to its article.

- There are many thousands of articles on Wikipedia with "not enough sources" to prove their total content, and nobody simply deletes them just because of that. So it would be unfair to do it with this page, and don't do it with all the thousands of other pages in this same situation.

- All of the movies and TV series mentioned in the page are easily verifiable on IMDb (links are below!), and some of them are also on YouTube.

- This article was created by me ("Culturalvendas.uy"), and then, it was proposed to deletion by the user "Reddogsix" (A MONTH AGO), and then, it was undeleted (saved) by the user "Atlantic306" (a month ago, also). So, in theory, this page was already approved by the Wikipedia community. Wikipedia had already approved this page, 30 days ago. So, according to Wikipedia's policy: nobody should try to delete an article that was previously considered for deletion, and then "undeleted" (saved) by users. This rule is available in the Wikipedia Page about "Deletions". Please check it out!

- I can perfectly specify the seasons of "Malhação" in which the actor has been. There are YouTube videos with his scenes in at least two seasons. However, he's been to more seasons, but Rede Globo (the production company and distributor) doesn't allow its content on YouTube, because they have their own video platform for web and mobile, called "Globo Play". So it's almost impossible to find episodes of TV Series and Telenovelas from Rede Globo on YouTube. In the scenes, he works with the Main Actors from the series. Two videos are right below.

LINKS FOR TWO DIFFERENT SEASONS OF "MALHAÇÃO" (TV SERIES): - http://youtube.com/watch?v=MnBCwAWTQC4 - Some of the scenes with Gustavo Goulart in the Season 2010. - http://youtube.com/watch?v=5D5yM0PU9SI - Some of the scenes with Gustavo Goulart in the Season 2011.

- Regarding to "Paraíso Tropical", it seems like he wasn't the Lead Actor. I made a mistake. He was a Supporting Actor, and not in all episodes. Probably around 70% of the episodes. That's why he's never been credited in the opening credits. It was a Guest Starring character. I could perfectly make this update to the page. Please note that the References to it, ARE ALREADY in the References List of the article "Gustavo Goulart".

- I know that Wikipedia doesn't recognize IMDb as a Reference, but I'm gonna send IMDb links for each one of the Films that he's been. I ask you to please consider that IMDb does have REQUIREMENTS to add a New Title (film or series) to its database. If you don't believe it, it's simple: you try to create a New Title on IMDb, without any internet link to prove its existence. I'm sure they will reject the creaton of your New Title.

LINKS TO THE MOVIES (with names in their original languages): - http://imdb.com/title/tt2474028 - "Minha Família" ("My Family") - http://imdb.com/title/tt2431816 - "Apenas Mais Uma De Amor" ("Nothing But a Love Song") - http://imdb.com/title/tt2474036 - "Amor Terminal" ("The Last Words") - http://imdb.com/title/tt2735358 - "The Adventures of Sheriff Kid McLain" - http://imdb.com/title/tt5980720 - "Walking After You"

- I could also send links for his TV Series on IMDb, if needed. As an example: the brazilian version of "Whose Line Is It Anyway" has an official channel on YouTube, with over 200,000 views. It's more audience than a lot of TV Shows that we see around the world, right? And this TV Show was also broadcasted on Television, 6 years ago. However, only in the internet (without considering the TV audience), they already had over 200,000 views. And Gustavo Goulart is not only the main Actor of this show, but also its Director and Producer. LINK: http://youtube.com/semsaidavideos

- I know Wikipedia doesn't show "numbers of views" in its pages, but if you could have access to this information, you would notice that Gustavo Goulart has been probably having a good number of views per week on Wikipedia, because he does have fans and people that supports him. Once again, I know this is not considered by Wikipedia, but PLEASE CHECK his Official Twitter Account, so you can notice that this artist has a great number of fans and followers: http://twitter.com/gusway (120,000 followers) - As I've said before, I know that Wikipedia doesn't take it seriously. I'm just providing this social media to prove to you that Gustavo Goulart is popular, and known by over a hundred thousand people.

- Lastly, I feel like I should mention that the user "Nyanchoka" hasn't been quite helpful to me (as you can check in the end of his Talk Page, right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nyanchoka). I am a new user here, and I've tried (more than once) to ask him for HELP about "how to keep this article active", and he never gave me a great support. He was the one who decided to propose this article for deletion, and he is not even trying to be helpful to me, so I FEEL LOST HERE, and don't know what to do in order to keep this page here. I don't even know how am I supposed to try to prove the importance of this article to the Wikipedia community. I have the evidences. But nobody has ever said to me how to proceed, and Wikipedia sounds pretty complicated for new users. SO PLEASE SOMEBODY HELP ME!! THANK YOU SO MUCH!!

User: CULTURALVENDAS.UY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Culturalvendas.uy (talk • contribs) 20:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least Draft because he's actually notalbe as an actor with several major works and characters so that's something, generally I would actually say the current article is acceptable as is, and extensive and deeper searches would also be suggested to see if other sourcing exists. SwisterTwister talk 03:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Elgin Silver Oaks, Kalimpong[edit]

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

Also recommending deleting:

The Elgin Mount Pandim, Pelling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The Elgin Nor-Khill, Gangtok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable hotels. Just WP:MILL. Three articles, owned by the same company, created by editor who seems to be promoting their company. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not for promotion. As there was no other Wikipedia article for this hotel. This hotel is owned by Brij Raj Oberoi and all of these hotels are heritage properties — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLove10 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC) (Striking comment by blocked sock).[reply]

Delete all, per WP:PROMO -- this is strictly advertising. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Didn't find anything that would suggest WP:GNG for these 3 topics. Anup [Talk] 06:12, 30 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Fuhrig[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced biography of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. This is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL in and of itself, but the sourcing here is nowhere near getting him over WP:GNG instead -- the article is based almost entirely on primary and unreliable sources, with just two pieces of actual reliable source coverage which both just namecheck his existence rather than being about him. None of this, neither the quality of sourcing nor the substance of what it's there to support, is good enough. Bearcat (talk) 09:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, can you please point out which ones are primary??? Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every single thing not from the Los Angeles Times. Notability is not supported by the internal newsletters of his own political party; notability is not supported by an alumni obituary on the website of his own alma mater; notability is not supported by paid death notices; notability is not supported by a person's "our staff" profile on the website of his own employer or "our members" profile on the website of an organization he was directly affiliated with; notability is not supported by the press releases of a university that named a scholarship after him. It's supported by media coverage, media coverage, media coverage, media coverage and/or media coverage, and nothing else. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to being referenced in many books and having the Joseph Fuhrig Private Enterprise Scholarship named after him (not saying that makes him notable), he was a Libertarian governor candidate and well-known and has historical notability in Libertarian politics. Yes the article was hastily put together and needs improvement. Karl Twist (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem with the sources are not that they are primary, although some are (e.g., birth record), but that they are not independent. Most come from sources close to the subject (school, university, party), etc. I can not find sufficient independent coverage to warrant a keep per WP:GNG and can not see how he qualifies for inherent notability (e.g., per WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ACADEMIC. I would be glad to be proved wrong. No longer a penguin (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sourcing includes non-independent sourcing (e.g. a person's staff profile on the website of their own employer is still a primary source even though it's technically on an affiliated website instead of their own personal website.) So "primary" and "not independent" are not actually mutually exclusive terminologies. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that they are. I am just less sure about the fact that they are primary than that they are non-independent. "Generally, accounts written after the fact with the benefit (and possible distortions) of hindsight are secondary". Most of the sources were written with the benefit of hindsight, although to what extent they rely on primary sources and not unpublished personal knowledge is tough to tell. However, that is not important here at all - primary or not, they are not independent and can not be used to establish the notability of the subject. No longer a penguin (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is sourced to a mix of routine coverage of an election, non-indepdent sources, and primary sources. Defeated gubenatorial candidates need a lot more coverage than we have here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MEMORIAL. No indications of notability or significance and insufficient RS offered. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Insufficient discussion for consensus. Sandstein 07:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

0010x0010[edit]

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

Searching his professional name and real name shows that the article fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:DIRECTOR.

He has worked in some movies and all those movies don't have any notability. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was the Visual Supervisor for the Time within time project as mentioned on this page (credited as mziah mahakuassah) which is a notable film. xzis10z 22:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci talk to me 20:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Binary code. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- The references are credible according to the guidelines, so this page should not be deleted. This person uses many aliases and works on different types of media and projects, so perhaps the article could be edited in a more proper way to avoid confusion. Any help with this would be great! Many Thanks ! xzis10z 22:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way we can decide on this page ? I would like to know if it's worth the time to update this article. It seems like only the person who put the "afd" had a problem with this article, but he never responded. Thank you. violina16 11:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Paulden[edit]

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

Delete. Article, based on a mix of primary sources and purely localized media coverage, of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for county supervisor (which is not an WP:NPOL pass) and as a local environmental activist with local groups (which is not a pass of our notability standards for activists.) Of the 32 references cited here, 17 of them are primary sources that cannot support notability at all -- and of the remaining 15 that are real reliable source coverage, every last one of them is local to his own city and many of them just glancingly namecheck his existence rather than being about him. Nothing here is substantive enough, or sourced well enough, to earn him permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia. If this were Santacruzpedia, sure. But it's not. Bearcat (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, You say Quote: Of the 32 references cited here, 17 of them are primary sources. Hmmmm, OK ... So which ones are they???

1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. A person's notability cannot be supported by the websites or newsletters of organizations that they're directly affiliated with; it cannot be supported by his own contracting license in a contracting licensees database; and it cannot be supported by raw tables of election results in a database of raw tables of election results. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Notable historical preservation activist. Known and noted outside Santa Cruz. He's done work in other parts of California. Appeared on television multiple times. Interesting to see nomination for deletion at 09:13, 28 September 2016‎ and then deletion nominator casting deletion vote at 09:13, 28 September 2016. Well, I guess there's a lot to be said for keenness. Karl Twist (talk) 09:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If he were a notable historical preservation activist who was known and noted outside Santa Cruz, then he would be sourceable beyond the Bay Area's own local media alone. But exactly none of the reliable sources here leave the Bay Area. Appearing on television as a talking head on the news is not a notability freebie, if reliable source coverage isn't writing about the television appearances. And as for your "keenness" comment, do you even have a clue how the deletion process works? By definition, the page isn't created until I save it, so the moment of page creation and the timestamp on the nomination statement are always going to inherently be the exact same time. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Paulden is a historical presenvationist activist who gets a little attention in the local press, no attention more broadly. He does not pass any notability requirement that is workable. Also, the keep argument above cobnfuses name dropping with the type of indepth coverage needed to create a workable article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a vanity page / perma campaign poster. Not notable outside of minor local coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aravind Mangalashery[edit]

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

Unremarkable person written by the subject himself. Written in highly unencyclopaedic tone. + has no sources at all that cite that he even exists! Varun FEB2003 08:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources about Aravind Mangalashery, or his company/achievements, so it probably fails WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. Between the complete lack of sources for a BLP and the résumé-like style, it should be deleted. Sunmist (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not linked in and people should not create their own articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Totally unnotable person; definitely fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 07:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 05:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Purcell[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as an officeholder at the county level, which is not a level of office that gets a person over WP:NPOL -- and the one thing here that might make her more notable than the norm for a county recorder, the controversy around long lines in the primaries, still just makes her a WP:BLP1E. While her name can certainly be mentioned in United States presidential election in Arizona, 2016, this is not grounds for a standalone BLP of her as a person separately from that. Bearcat (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: This is Maricopa County, home of the rather infamous sheriff Joe Arpaio; this is a hotbed of anti-immigrant and very newsworthy conservative political action. The stuff happening there has national coverage. Montanabw^(talk) 09:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The event has national coverage; that coverage is not about her in a substantive enough manner to make her a suitable topic for a standalone BLP separate from the article on the event. Notability is not inherited, so the fact that it's Maricopa County does not entitle her to special treatment different from the way we would handle this if it were any other county in the United States. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep local or not, the subject is getting national coverage which more than satisfies WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It makes her a WP:BLP1E who should be covered in the article on the event rather than having a separate standalone BLP as a separate standalone topic. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I count at least three primary events of note in addition to the supporting information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: clearly meets WP:GNG. Coverage is much more than just one event. Hmlarson (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yeah, she's kind of like Kim Davis (county clerk) only not quite that notorious. More than BIO1E Montanabw^(talk) 23:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. MB298 (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Golden (politician)[edit]

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

Delete. While consensus formerly allowed city councillors in Winnipeg to be considered notable per WP:NPOL #3, that consensus has now been deprecated as no longer applicable. Nothing else here constitutes a strong claim that he's more notable than the norm, however; once I stripped a WP:CIRCULAR reference to another Wikipedia article, there was just one piece of reliable source coverage left and it just makes him a WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong delete City councilors in Winnipeg are no where near being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kanata Hongō[edit]

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

Google search did not turn up any relevant sources; thus there is no way to verify the accuracy of the subject's biography on this article. Has starred in TV/movies a few times, as either supporting roles and very little main roles. Only supporting roles in anime. Possibly a rising star, but for the time being, it's too early for the subject to warrant his own article. Sk8erPrince (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Starring character in the live-action The Prince of Tennis movie in 2006. Other stuff can be sourced from the JA wikipedia article for starters. Shin is a notable supporting character in Nana 2 and notable characters in the live-action Gantz films. Starring in an anime like Btooom!!, and having parts in Moon Child. He also stars as Armin Arlert in the live-action Attack on Titan movies. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While you make excellent points, I'll wait for further input from other users. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of roles seems sufficient. Sourcing is a problem but if we take into account the refs over at ja.wiki I don't see this as ideal breaker. We might need to trim the prose to remove possible BLP issues but otherwise I don't see any real concerns.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multiple reoccurring roles in TV programs. Adequate and regular coverage in Western media. I'd say twice as much in Japanese media that doesn't come up in searches. Karl Twist (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, everyone. This AFD will be closed. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:48, 28 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 WP:SNOW and WP:IAR. This was not a well thought out nomination. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miho Arakawa[edit]

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

Main role as Himari (Penguindrum), significant roles include Meiko (Digimon) and Sonia (Dangan Ronpa). Anything else? Google search does not turn up any relevant sources to speak of; articles on ANN are just passing mentions (cast announcements). Not notable for the time being. Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Starring roles in Penguindrum, Wizard Barristers, Magica Wars, Yurikuma Arashi. Supporting role in Riddle Story of Devil. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 09:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subject barely has enough notable credits to have her article. Probably WP:TOOSOON. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are notable anime shows as they have been adapted into English. And she stars in them. That's WP:ENT right there. How is that barely? I have added news articles and interviews to these roles and that's only from the first google news search. Barely = 1 role. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 09:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magica Wars has never been adapted to English. That's not a very notable show, then. Also, Tsunomi (Wizard Barristers) is not a main role, but main supporting. You even said it yourself - look at how the roles are grouped on ANN, right? Tsunomi is grouped in the second category. So I assert my claim once again that the subject barely has any notable credits; only 2 so far (Yurikuma Arashi and Penguindrum). --Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magica Wars is available for streaming with English subtitles on Crunchyroll. Not that the suggestion it isn't notable without it holds up.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, then I shall clarify myself - what I mean by "English adaption" is whether or not the show has received a dub. In Miho's case, the three shows that she played a significant role in - Penguindrum, Wizard Barristers, and Yurikuma Arashi have dubs.

Lack of dubs still shouldn't be used as an assumption of notability. Setting aside the 'day one" streaming of subtitled versions, companies are again issuing sub only releases. SephyTheThird (talk) 11:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still argue that Magica Wars is not notable, but that's not the main topic here. So, moving on... --Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANN doesn't necessarily determine the hierarchy of the roles. You should also look at Cast/Staff for the anime show itself. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, you SUGGESTED me to use ANN's grouping system to determine the hierachy of the roles, would you like to me directly quote you? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll also notice she goes on all the promos for the show as a starring member. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANN's got a very limited grouping system; they usually pick the 1-2 top stars in a show and usually just the protagonists, grouping everyone else as supporting or lower. They're not authoritative on that, but if you need to know which actors carry the show, that's one way to decide. Cast/Staff anime lists pick the top 6-10 people and those can be deemed star billing and significant roles in the production. Like I said, that she is touring with the promo events suggests she might have a starring role. If she tours with 2 others and there are like 3-5 stars in cast/staff, then probably yes she's a star for that show. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 11:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least 3 major roles, passes Wp:Ent.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I need some input from other members regarding this matter. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To the nominator: Wikipedia editors don't answer to you and you should get off your high horse. I agree with AngusWOOF's assessment that WP:ENT is passed and wonder on what basis the nominator places himself above Wikipedia's guidelines. _dk (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE, and WP:POINT. This subject passes WP:ENT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 28 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) Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kujira[edit]

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

I doubt the subject's notability - her only significant roles are Sakura (Dangan Ronpa), Orochimaru (Naruto) and Otose (Gintama). The rest are bit parts/minor supporting characters. Google search does not turn up anything useful or relevant. Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refferred to by ANN as "incomparable" [36] and they covered her marriage [37]. Also found a video interview but I need to determine its source as it may be a DVD bonus.SephyTheThird (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your point on "incomparable", but not so much on her marriage. Her marriage that does assert to any sort of notability. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having three significant roles in major anime meets WP:ENT #1. Naruto, Gintama, and Danganronpa are all major enough. Orochimaru is a notable Naruto character early on in the series. I can't say much about Otose, but given her recurring position in the show and that the anime has like 201+ episodes, I'd say she's notable. She also has a recurring role in the various You're Under Arrest! anime series as the Scooter Mama. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 09:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any additional sources such as interviews and news coverage to assert the subject's notability? If there is, please add them. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gintama is currently 0ver 300 and will still go up. It also has an extremely large ensemble cast who appear at various rates. It's also largely episodic but will occasionally have an arc so characters will come and go as and when. Otose is one of the bigger recurring characters and has large roles in several of those arcs as well as the "as and when" appearances.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Angus, her credits are sourced in the Japanese wiki article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Otose's importance is up for debate and would not be enough to keep the article on it's own. However when combined with other roles, especially Orochimaru I think the argument in favour of keep is stronger than the deletion argument. After all, we have critical commentary on her role, and I'd be surprised if there wasn't more.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beroe Inc[edit]

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

No indication of importance, CSD removed by IP editor. Only funding announcements and PRnewswire found. Cotton2 (talk) 06:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article, whose given sources are two routine funding announcements (the second a passing mention) and one WP:PRIMARY item by a company employee. My searches are not finding better: at best WP:TOOSOON; fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's nothing here - David Gerard (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt once and for all, this was deleted twice in 2008 as advertising, and that's exactly what this is now; not only is A7 applicable, there are clearly persistent intent of advertising thus salt is needed. Listed sources, of course, suggest nothing actually substantial since it's all about one thing: what there is to advertise about the company and where said company is going. SwisterTwister talk 18:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A7 material + WP:PROMO. Salt too. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:23, 30 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. Sam Walton (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steven McKagen[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also fails WP:NSPORTS, hasn't played in a tier 1 international match. Northern Mariana Islands are not FIFA-affiliated, therefore can't play tier 1 international matches. Hack (talk) 06:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has played senior international football for a sovereign nation on multiple occasions as noted here. His last three appearances have been for his country in official competition matches oragnised by the AFC against the senior international teams of Palestine, Bangladesh and Nepal as noted here. Player fundamentally fulfills the spirit of NFOOTY having appeared at the highest level possible on nine separate occasions in senior international competitions organised by the official continental association and regional association. Fenix down (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not participated in a tier-1 international match as the Northern Mariana Islands are a non FIFA-affiliated nation. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY as he has appeared in major AFC matches. Smartyllama (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The National-Football-Teams links confirms he has played in zero official FIFA matches - @Fenix down and Smartyllama: you might wish to reconsider. Giant Snowman 11:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence he meets GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played in any FIFA-recognised international friendlies, failing WP:NFOOTY. No significant media coverage to pass WP:GNG either. --Jimbo^[online] 15:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a bit of a 'cut-off' question: at the moment, the cut-off for presumed notability for those who don't make WP:GNG is at FIFA, not confederation, membership. We may chose to have a discussion to shift the notability cut-off but given that it is useful to have one, I'm happy to enforce that in this case. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eiji Miyashita[edit]

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

Google search shows up nothing but user generated sites; subject lacks enough significant roles. Little to no news coverage, limited references. Non-notable voice actor at best. Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviewing roles from ANN:

1) Kyohei Kashihara in Arpeggio of Blue Steel - main characters 2) Sosuke Sugaya in Assassination Classroom - one of the students in the main class - listed fifth overall in ANN announcement [38] 3) Airzel in Bakugan - major villain in third season 4) Keiichi Amagi in Dragonaut - supporting under Lindworm Unit 5) Papa in Higepiyo - supporting but possible main as the cast list is small 6) Kenji Ito in Horizon - there are a ton of students in this series. hard to tell if main or supporting 7) Gen Shishio in Kekkaishi - main character (3rd on overall list) 8) Nagai in Nogizaka Haruka - supporting character, among the "three idiots" classmates 9) Takahiro Tadasu in Princess Princess - supporting character, student council 10) Takeo Tsurumaru in Shadow Star Narutaru - main character

Arpeggio, assassination classroom, bakugan, kekkaishi are major anime shows. So this person should be notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article's first paragraph should be edited to show what the subject is really notable for. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. Now, I'll await for the input of others. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Angus has clearly made the case here. I don't think further evidence is required for an early close.

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

El Makarna[edit]

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

I am undecided as to whether this is a hoax or if it is done in good faith. But as far as I can understand, there is no such thing as a dish called "el makarna". "Makarna" is a Turkish name for pasta or macaroni, more specificly a Turkish type of pasta. It is also used as a generic name for a number of pasta dishes, like "fırında makarna" (in the oven), "salçalı makarna" (with sauce), "etli makarna" (with meat), "yogurtlu makarna" (with yoghurt) etc. But "el makarna" is something different. "El" in Turkish means hand, and a Google search for "el makarna" -wikipedia gives less than 100 hits, most of them concerned with different kind of pasta machines or descriptions of how to make pasta by hand. Searching for recipes gives 4 hits, none of them seems relevant. Searching with "tarifi" (Turkish for recipe) gives 25 hits. Some of these are recipes for making pasta by hand, not one of them seems to match the description given in the article.

Some words about the contents. As for the comparison ("very similar") with spaghetti alla carbonara, I do not see it. No eggs, no bacon, no black pepper. Then, the external links: The first one is about "fırında makarna" (pasta in the oven), which is quite different from the description. No "el" mentioned in the text, "hand" is mentioned about preparing meatballs. No relevance. The second link is actually about "el makarna" (hand made pasta), but has no similarity with the description in the article. No cheese or olive oil, just flour, egg, water and salt, and no way made in 12 minutes. Finally, the picture that was placed in the article (later removed as copyvio) was a picture of "cevikli makarna" (pasta with walnuts) or "cevikli erişte" (walnut noodles), No similarity to description.

Confusing, contradicory and without substance. T*U (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note also that the former article "Makarna Firinda" is now a redirect to Pastitsio. I also find no sources for "El Makarna," only recipes for various iterations of makarna. Also note, for what it is worth, that the article was created by User:Mrclever2248, blocked as a sock of User:Shingling334. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:31, 27 September 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) 05:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- may not exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. Qed237 (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. Sam Walton (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Khurays[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NGEO. I can find no information beyond the coordinate location of the mountain. A book search seems to only turn up books which are collections of Wiki articles. Ajpolino (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:V. I am unable to find anything in online references. I also don't have access to the book mentioned in the article. If someone can verify I would gladly change my !vote, but till then it is a delete. (Just to clarify this is a WP:DEL7 delete as opposed to a WP:FAILN delete). Thus, nothing prevents this article from being recreated if sources can be found. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:23, 22 September 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) 05:51, 28 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaoru Mizuhara[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Google search shows up nothing but fansites; relevant sources are nil. Only significant role is Misao Kusakabe from Lucky Star, but even then, that's only a main supporting role. Given that the subject has no lead roles to speak of, I do not think she meets the notability criteria. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:38, 28 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 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before you vote, please review the previous nomination. I personally do NOT agree with the keep camp from the 1st nomination, FYI. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yomi in Ga Rei Zero is a main, and so is her role in gdgd fairies, but most of the other ones are supporting. Misao from Lucky Star is low on the notable characters as one of the classmates in the supporting cast. Lucky Star really only has the four girls, the teacher, the has-been idol and Minoru Shiraishi as himself. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything in terms of sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 28 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) Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 07:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minoru Shiraishi[edit]

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

Google search only shows up three articles from ANN. One regarding the subject using someone else's dojin without their permission, another regarding his marriage, and the last one was about his facial paralysis. NONE of these articles scream notability. Looking at the list of roles he has, the subject has yet to voice as a main role, only main supporting characters at best. I do not believe the subject is notable enough to warrant his own article. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's a major character in Lucky Star where he stars as himself, and that's the only one that screams notability. He's in the main cast for DN Angel. In the new Initial D films, he has a main cast role as Itsuki Takeuchi. Taniguchi in Haruhi Suzumiya is a supporting. Sakamoto in Nichijou is a main cast character. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sakamoto (Group 2) is part of the supporting cast, and so is Takeshi (DN Angel, Group 3). Minoru himself did appear on Lucky Star, yes, but as part of the supporting cast (Group 2). Only Itsuki (Initial D) could really be counted as a main role, but even then, it isn't as well known as his appearance on Lucky Star as a supporting character. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He still counts as a significant role in Lucky Star as he is listed in the cast section [39] [40]. He and Akira host the Lucky Channel segment at the end of each episode. On the anime page he even has his own twitter prominently listed. [41] That ANN even bothered with 3 articles about his personal life was because of Lucky Star. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So we're down with only two significant roles, then. That still doesn't mean the subject is notable aside from his work from Lucky Star and Initial D. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sakamoto's a main character in Nichijou. He's listed among the six main characters. [42]. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then we're down to debate whether or not the subject appearing as himself in Lucky Star is really that notable. The character himself is supporting; almost on the same level as Misao Kusakabe. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Akira and Minori in Lucky Star are star-level when it comes to the anime. He is practically cult-like popular for his performance there as with Nabeshin, so if it turns out the article doesn't meet notability then a direct to his character in Lucky Star would be appropriate. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose that does make sense. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE, and WP:ENT. This subject passes our notability guidelines. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not a case of WP:BEFORE. I did try to look up relevant sources for the subject, and to no avail. WP:ENT cannot be applied either because the subject lacks enough significant roles. My analysis has led me to believe that the subject's list of roles does not stack up to the level of Miho Arakawa's (whom I previously nominated for deletion). The latter is clearly an example of WP:ENT. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than enough notable roles to warrant inclusion. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Minzoni[edit]

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

nothing to establish notability over hundreds of other such stories during WWII, uncited and tone-tagged for years. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The {{unreferenced}} tag seems to be in error; there are two Italian sources given in the "Bibliography" section. Joe Roe (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as Minzoni has entries in many printed encyclopedias including the main Italian encyclopedia Treccani [43], several monographies (in addition to the two cited in the bibliography, Don Minzoni: il prete ucciso dai fascisti by Lorenzo Bedeschi and Don Minzoni by Gabriella Fanello Marcucci), was honored in a postage stamp [44], his story was adapted into a RAI television series [45] etc. etc. Obviously notable beyond any reasonable doubt. Cavarrone 19:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, I agree with Cavarrone and I'd like to underline that all around Italy there are streets or squares nemed after Don Minzoni (see [46]).--Pampuco (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the points made above, there are now at least two English language references which may be a help to our readers. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable in his home country; enough there to pass GNG. Kierzek (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- many references come up in Google books, such as Il Partito popolare a Ferrara: cattolici, socialisti e fascisti. He appears to meet WP:NAUTHOR as well, and there are books written about him: Worldcat link. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable enough to pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Woodmen's Circle Home[edit]

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

None of this suggests an independently notable and improvable article for acceptance, the links listed are simply a local news story and then a trivial link, my searches are then finding the same thing, nothing sufficient to actually suggest this being improvable and acceptable. This was in fact PRODed when it started but it was removed with the basis of still needing improvements, but that notability was still in fact questionable, which is still the case now. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT with a touch of WP:TNT; reads like a personal essay with content such as this:

"While it was only a rumor, members of the church began to have trouble with the treatment of the children they were taking care of and this caused other rumors that children died in the house, making it haunted."

I'm not sure if it's not a hoax. In any case, not the content one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its poorly sourced with no real indication of notability. Its just a bunch of unsourced rumors and hearsay. The two sources that are included prove that the property exists, but do not really say why its particularly notable, and they certainly do not back up any of the outlandish claims in the article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Goristro[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per BOZ. Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). All of the sources regarding the creature are primary, published by the creators of D&D. Looking through the target article, it seems like all of the information in this article is already present, so there's really not much else that would actually need to be merged. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect only as there's been consensus these are not explicitly capable of being sufficiently merged, therefore there's no need for unnecessary work. SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons); nothing to merge as this is an self-referenced essay. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hit Rader.com[edit]

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

Name is spelt wrong, it's supposed to be Rater.com. Aaron's The Best (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is there any reason why the page can't just be moved to the correctly spelled title? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with the above comment re doing a simple page move, but based on the page as is I think the article should be deleted based on failing notability and verifiability. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that this page has been moved by the original poster. But I still think it fails notability. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TowIt[edit]

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

This app got a little news coverage for its idea ([47] and [48] for example) but ultimately I think it fails WP:ORG. agtx 02:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Too many RS. Forget ORG, this qualifies on GNG. Google News is full of significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources not only analyzing (praising or dissing) this app, but even shows city governments, civil community groups and more talking about this app. Note to the nom: Just click on the link that comes with this Afd for searching links and if you are satisfied, you might consider withdrawing this nom. Thanks. Lourdes 03:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53] (can't get video to play). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these are effectively the same article from the same week or two in spring 2015. No coverage at all since then. I don't think an app gets an article because news sources (even reliable ones) ran stories about its existence on a slow news week. agtx 05:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, in part because notability is not tempoarary, and in part per the actual dates of the sources I provided above. The topic has received coverage in January, May and June of 2015.

[54] – June 4 2015
[55] – May 28, 2015
[56] – January 21, 2015
[57] – January 19, 2015
[58] – no date

– Also, here's another source: [59], published on April 27, 2015. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above so that WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs work but I'm confident the sources NA1K has found will help it to be fixed by normal editing, so I don't think deletion is the answer. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should add that there does appear to be a COI problem on this page. I understand that doesn't affect notability, but I did want to mention it. agtx 23:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- COI declaration added to the talk page. It should be noted that agtx's apparent negative bias towards this subject could also represent a COI. Perhaps agtx could be personally impacted through the existence of the application, or have a financial interest in a related industry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by G0rf (talk • contribs) 23:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - G0rf, that is an argument (in my opinion, silly) that you should not place in this forum. Take it to coin if you wish. Thanks. Lourdes 02:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be clear, there is no basis for this bad faith accusation. I can categorically state that I have absolutely no interest in anything even related to this subject. agtx 02:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - My apologies, I don't mean to be argumentative. Regardless, I'm now done adding to this article. Feel free to do what you wish with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G0rf (talk • contribs) 02:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also, thank you for the consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G0rf (talk • contribs) 02:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natsuko Kuwatani[edit]

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

Subject has little to no significant roles; limited news coverage and strong references are almost nil. I fail to see what the subject is notable for. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ENT. Suiseiseki is a major character in Rozen Maiden that has spun off a Desu meme. There are also 39 sources present over at ja:wiki [60]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviewing roles from ANN: 1) Fiore in Chrono Crusade - notable villain 2) Ryoko in Haruhi Suzumiya series - supporting but reprising across all franchise 3) Yue in Negima - borderline main. this is a big cast and yue is a regular among the 31 students featured 4) Koi Chigusa in Futakoi - main cast, there are a bunch of twins, so she's among these 5) Ai Mikami in Future Diary - 7th diary user out of 12 contestants 6) Himiko Kudou in GetBackers - supporting 7) tweedledee in Kiddy Grade - supporting 8) Alph (Arf) in Nanoha - main 9) Michiru in Magikano - main cast, main girl's younger sister 10) Suiseiseki in Rozen Maiden - main (one of the 7 rozen maidens) 11) Kasuga in Sengoku Basara - supporting / regular 12) Yae Shinatsuhiko in Yozakura Quartet - main cast [61] 13) Sae Kawano in Yurumates - main Summary) Of these, Negima, Nanoha, Magikano, Rozen Maiden, Sengoku Basara, Yozakura Quartet, and Yurumates have her in main cast roles, and these are notable anime titles. Haruhi Suzumiya is notable supporting. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article's first paragraph should be edited to state what the subject is known for. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshihisa Kawahara[edit]

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

ZERO main roles, and limited news coverage and strong references that assert the subject's notability. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshihisa Kawahara ANN roles: 1) Tatsu in Absolute Duo - supporting, 2) Pierce in Magical Index II - supporting, 3) Precht in Fairy Tail Zero - main, 4) Bobby in Good Luck Girl - supporting, recurring 5) Zwei in Hiiro no Kakera - supporting, one of the Logos 6) Milton in Horizon in the Middle of Nowhere - minor/supporting crow 7) Mikihito Higashida in Kampfer - supporting 8) Yasu in Nana - supporting, recurring 9) Kojiro in Nichijou - supporting, main girl's friend's crush 10) Daihen in Re-Kan! - supporting, ghosts SUMMARY: Only Fairy Tail Zero is a main, so voting to delete based on anime notability. JA wikipedia is also about Stub/Start level so if someone really needs information about him, they can go there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cant find any significant secondary sourcing here, plus it looks like overall his roles are minor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eri Sendai[edit]

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

Non-notable voice actress whose only significant role is that of the supporting cast. No news coverage, and neither are there any relevant sources. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable role as Kurumi Mimino/Milky Rose in Yes! Precure 5. Being a precure magical girl gets you added to all their franchise and all-stars films. Rei Saotome (Blair in US) in Yu-Gi-Oh! GX is also a main character. Yukari Morita in Rocket Girls is the lead character. Yuuhi Shimabara is one of the three lead character sisters in Neo Ranga. she voices Arika, the lead character's female friend in Medabots anime series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ENT, I will be adding sources where needed for her roles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sk8erPrince (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wasabi Mizuta[edit]

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

Only major role is Doraemon. Zero news coverage and relevant sources. Subject's page should be deleted or redirected to Doraemon. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Have you tried searching Japanese sources? I found quite a few about her, and while most were related to her role as Doraemon, the number of related hits suggests that she is notable. It's slightly harder to find sources about lesser-known seiyuu, even in Japanese, so maybe we shouldn't behold ourselves to systemic bias. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Better reference them if you want those alleged sources to be acknowledged, then. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE, no indication that the nominator has tried looking for sources. Looking at the Japanese wiki article I can see 14 sources: [62], if the nominator cant read Japanese then he/she can ask someone at WP:TRANSLATION. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a he, so you shall refer to me with male pronouns only. Please cite the sources in the English article in order for your assertion to be relevant.--Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is important for you to verify whether those 14 alleged sources are relevant or not. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep before I bother to go through the filmography, I'll cite that she won the Kids / Family Award at the 4th Seiyu Awards [63] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winning an award = notability

I'll withdraw this AFD. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 19:59, 28 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 as blatant hoax. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swimmy (Friends)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. Would redirect to List of Friends characters but does not appear on that list. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:26, 28 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) Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobuyo Ōyama[edit]

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

Only major roles are Monokuma and Doraemon. Little to no news coverage, and no reliable and strong sources. Subject's page should be deleted or redirected to Doraemon. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Her 26 years as Doraemon ensure her notability. They even made a tv special about her life. [64].SephyTheThird (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good source. Make sure to put it in the article, so that I may withdraw this AFD. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This article passes the WP:GNG. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Nominator states on their talk page that they are "very careful about choosing who to nominate for deletion" and will not nominate "VERY notable seiyu like Kotono Mitsuishi and Megumi Ogata". Yet goes to nominate a veteran seiyuu at the very top of the industry. I have no words. No polite ones at least. _dk (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Go on, say what you're going to say. "Top of the industry"? Where's your source that supports your claim? Your claim isn't validated just because you think she is notable. Is that an empty claim that I could just dismiss? You could be a veteran VA, and STILL not be notable (See Mark Stoddard and Ed Blaylock). I nominated the subject because she is only notable for two things; there is PLENTY of room to doubt her notability. I choose not to nominate Megumi nor Kotono because both of them have WAY more significant roles that nominating them for deletion is beyond ridiculous. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doraemon is a global cultural icon beyond EVA, we should not have to descend to your level of trolling or ignorance to satisfy whatever you're trying to achieve here (nothing beneficial, I'm sure). You've said elsewhere you didn't even do the bare minimum while looking for things to delete, and that you don't bother searching for Japanese sources because you don't understand the language. Well, those are the things you are supposed to have done before nominating for deletion. There are pages of articles of Oyama both in English and Japanese That you have no idea what you are doing nor have you made the bare minimum to gauge her notability puts you in a very negative light. In my opinion, your drive-by nominations in this nature have been nothing but disruptive. This is the best reply I can do politely, the impolite version would just be two words. _dk (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling my foot. I don't need the likes of you to tell what I should do and I should not do. And I also don't need you to tell me whether or not I've been disruptive as of late. That certainly isn't for YOU to decide, are we clear? Granted, I am new to this, but when an AFD is made, YOU are to make your assertions clear, do you understand? All your bold statements aren't relevant arguments to state your case. Angus already told me what I should do, anyway. He's a good fella (unlike you). I don't need your opinion, so you can get off of my case, OR stay away from my nominations. I'm in need of more capable voters anyway (yeah, that means NOT YOU). Anyway, seeing as Angus has provided siginificant sources for the subject, I'll see to it that the AFD be withdrawn. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:43, 28 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, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Sprint International[edit]

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

Yearly edition of a now defunct pro golf tournament. Consensus is that only Golf major championships, WGC events, The Players Championship and one or two other elite are notable enough to have yearly articles. The Sprint International doesn't qualify. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 01:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Tewapack (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Best to restrict ourselves to the elite events. Nigej (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jin Domon[edit]

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

No main roles nor any significant credits. News coverage and strong, reliable sources and references are nil. Subject is blatantly non-notable. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ANN highlights two roles: 1) Hikaru in Green Green - main cast, main character's classmate. 2) Takao Hiyama is a major character in Future Diary, but that's about it. The roles of Lucky Roux and Merry n One Piece are minor characters. Nothing to copy from JA wikipedia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for a stand alone article at this time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Lewis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Marie Lewis

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

A complete and utter failure for GNG. Literally all my searches just bring up her name in a line of lists, but there is nothing specifically about Lewis. The one "reliable" source used also has nothing to do with the subject so I wonder why it was used. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC) ::speedy keep' Article was nominated for WP:Pointy reasons. Subject competed in world championships and this automatically confers notability.2607:FB90:763:6EFB:6A9B:2546:F3FF:40B0 (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Comment above was made by block-evading user CrazyAces489.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I struck the sockpuppet's comment. I don't agree that simply competing at a world championship confers automatic notability, but I do think she's notable. See my comments below. Papaursa (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Competing in the world championships for judo doesn't automatically confer notability - that presumption of notability applies to olympics but the fact that she medalled might. The WP:GNG remains an issue since that trumps all in both directions.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I couldn't find anything on "Marie Lewis" at judoinside.com, but I could when I looked for "Mary Lewis". Perhaps this article should be renamed to "Mary Lewis (judoka)". I have updated and sourced the article, though I left the title unchanged. I'm inclined to support notability to anyone who wins a medal at a world championship of a major organization, especially when she was also a four time U.S. champion and finished in the top 3 nine times. I would say WP:MANOTE and WP:NSPORT are met, although I couldn't find the significant coverage needed for WP:GNG. I think it's worth pointing out that women's judo wasn't an Olympic sport until 1988, so the women's world championships were clearly the highest level at the time. Papaursa (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good catch on the Mary Lewis connection. I think medaling at the World Judo championships confers notability and her other success in US championships adds to that. Like to see more sources besides JudoInside.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Future Diary characters#Yuno Gasai. Sandstein 07:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomosa Murata[edit]

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

Tomosa Murata only has Yuno Gasai as her major role; that only does NOT make her notable, regardless of how many times the "Yuki Yuki" meme and video loop have been shared on the internet. No news coverage, and no strong and reliable sources. I deem the subject as non-notable. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or redirect to Future Diary. Well this is weird. In addition to Yuno Gasai, she has a role in Girl Friend Beta. Searching for Japanese sources surprisingly came up nearly empty, and I had less luck with an English search, which is surprising considering Future Diary's popularity in the West (it was far less popular in Japan; the anime didn't sell well there). Nevertheless, Yuno Gasai is popular enough that perhaps the article could pass WP:ENTERTAINER by the smallest of margins. But if consensus determines that she isn't independently notable, a redirect to Future Diary (as a possible search term) would be a far preferable option to deletion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with redirecting the article. However, I must say, just having voiced as Yuno alone isn't enough to make the subject notable. Please, do view this AFD - even Mike Pollock, whom voiced as Eggman, ended up having his article redirected to the Eggman page. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that Tomosa is typecast as Yuno to warrant a redirect, whereas Mike Pollock = Eggman is strongly noted to warrant the redirect. Not listed among the five main characters in Girl Friend Beta, so not notable there. Calling WP:TOOSOON AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Future Diary characters#Yuno Gasai - I found one source by Ameba which has some biographical info to it but it is basically the Japanese version of Twitter. [65]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misuzu Togashi[edit]

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

Subject only has Yukiteru Amano as her major role; non-notable voice actress with no news coverage or strong, reliable sources. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added some sources from ANN. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but your citations only lead back to her only main role as Yukiteru, and some supporting/minor roles. I am arguing that BECAUSE the subject's only main role is Yukiteru, she is deemed as non-notable and her page should either be deleted or redirected back to Future Diary's character list. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ANN analysis of bolded roles: [66] 1) Origami in Date A Live - main char 2) Yukiteru Amano in Future Diary - lead char 3) Azuki in Maken-ki - supporting, there are about 15 non-starring supporting characters 4) Hibiya in Mekaku City Actors - main cast 5) Mai Minakami in Nichijou - main cast 6) Takayoshi Hayasaka in Oneechan ga Kita - main cast, main character's brother who cross dresses 7) Minatsu Shiina in Student Council's Discretion - main char, one of the student council members in the core group 8) Funko in Upotte - lead char SUMMARY: Lots of main cast roles in notable anime shows, so meets WP:ENT. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:ENT.SephyTheThird (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am in agreement her roles pass WP:ENT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Pistore[edit]

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

References and sources are nil. IMDB does not count because it is generally understood as unreliable. Non-notable actor that has not made any groundbreaking achievements to deserve his own article; no news coverage. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is another Odex dub actor from Singapore. This will depend on that dub's notability in general. He voices in One Piece and Yu-Gi-Oh as main characters. Recommend delsorting to singapore. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odex dubs are not notable in the least. I believe several people could attest to that. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion on WT:ANIME, the Odex dub should be considered notable as the main dub in Singapore and that notability of the actor should not be based on whether Odex is more notable than Funimation or vice-versa. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that notability is not inherited; he could be in a Disney Studio Ghibli dub for all intents and purposes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I couldn't find any sources for this person either. Doesn't seem like we have anything to work with. ~Mable (chat) 12:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable or independent sources, roles not enough for notability. Esw01407 (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable roles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Powers[edit]

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

ZERO citations used. That means this is an unsourced bio, which is synonymous to unreliable info. Subject has not shown any major breakthroughs in the entertainment industry, aside from having no news coverage. Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's got a bunch of major roles (One Piece, Case Closed) but it's all for the Singapore / Odex dub, which the notability is questionable. This needs to be opened up to Wikiproject Singapore on whether those dub actors are notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe Odex dubs are notable. If anything, the notability of the One Piece and Case Closed Funimation dubs are way higher. Hell, even the notorious One Piece dub by 4kids is more notable than the Odex dub. Notable for having their One Piece license revoked by Toei, that is. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion on WT:ANIME, the Odex dub should be considered notable as the main dub in Singapore. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As with Paul Pistore, I can't find any sources mentioning this person. There doesn't seem to be anything to work with. Wikipedia doesn't serve merely as a list of appearances of a specific actor, but we don't have any sources to actually write about this actor either, so I do believe the article should be deleted. ~Mable (chat) 13:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but question. In terms of voice roles, not much to work with. Only concern I found was Ribbit and his name came up often, but I'm not sure the articles could contribute much to this. Esw01407 (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL7 and WP:WHYN. Secondary sources are required and I am unable to find one. Sourcing an entire article to IMDb is not appropriate. I'm also not convinced about the Odex dubs, but that is no longer relevant considering the verifiability issues. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A non-notable voice actor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sam Walton (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miocene (band)[edit]

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

No sources found which demonstrate meeting WP:NBAND. —swpb^T 12:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BAND. almost all the sources provided are its own website. The others are unreliable. LibStar (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You really have to look beyond the included refs, which is why WP:BEFORE is a thing - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep - the refs in the article are of course terrible, but a bit of applied WP:BEFORE turned up Wafflemag bothering to do a retrospective, metal-observer.com/articles_print.php?lid=1&sid=2&id=4925 (which is a bit zineish, but decades-running and multiply-authored ... though being in the spam filter is a bit of a worry), review, review ... and Cellular Memory did have an entry in the UK Top 100 album charts, even if it was one week at #99. (Always look for chart entries.) On that evidence, I will go so far as to predict in confidence further contemporary sources exist. Anyway, keep on balance - David Gerard (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 28 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tillie Moreno[edit]

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

Poorly cited biography article whose subject is of questionable notability. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of sources in Philippine news media.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - often noted as celebrity and former pop star in Philippines. Article could use cleanup and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. I added a few to get started. Hmlarson (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 28 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Committee of Tourism Film Festivals[edit]

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

Delete. Advertorially slanted article about an organization with no strong claim to passing WP:ORG, and very little reliable source coverage about it; the referencing here is parked almost entirely on primary sources like its own website and the websites of member organizations. As always, an organization is not entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists; it must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 28 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, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kazato Tomizawa[edit]

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

Lack of significant roles, limited news coverage; subject is hardly notable enough to deserve his own article. Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two starring roles in anime films: Coo in Summer Days with Coo, and Makoto Kobayashi in Colorful. But that's about it. WP:TOOSOON to write anything meaningful about the actor. Sounds like a child actor though, so potential is good in the future. Needs more news articles about the actor beyond just cast announcements related to the film.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Im just not seeing any notable roles here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Evidence of notability has surfaced in the AfD and evidently convinced people. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Coctails[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Meets none of the criteria for WP:BAND, as the "notability" of the bluelinked members is a) suspect and their articles have COI problems, and b) they're not notable for musical endeavors as required by the policy. MSJapan (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure no solid evidence of notability. Though that they got extensive coverage in Trouser Press indicates they may in fact be of note - David Gerard (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The references convey existence but not notability, and the single source is just a name check. So my weak vote is based on that. However, David Gerard references extensive coverage in Trouser Press, a solid source for 80's era independent bands. Yet my search turns up only a bio entry at Trouser Press site, which like similar unsourced bios may be promotional and cannot be used to gauge notability. David Gerard where are the examples of extensive coverage? I'll gladly change my vote if these sources can be cited.ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't have them either, that's why I said "not sure" instead of "keep" ;-) Don't see how Trouser Press would be promotional. In fact, here's the book version of what I linked above. And, delving more into the dark world of paper, here we have an extensive article in CMJ New Music Monthly from 1996, and that and Trouser Press swing it to keep for me. And a CMJ New Music Monthly review and a book mention, Spin and Option just to bludgeon the point home. The present article is terrible, but given the extensive printed coverage in Trouser Press' book and in that CMJ piece, plus the fact they got a pile of print coverage at the time, I'm pretty confident they're not only article-worthy but article-feasible - David Gerard (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where I take issue (no pun intended) with the coverage is that it all pretty much says they never got out of the Chicago scene, and none of those sources indicates that they had any lasting effect on other bands. On a first run-through, it all still seems very WP:LOCAL. Also, some specific points: that CMJ New monthly review is a namedrop on another single, and it doesn't even make it clear we're talking about the same group - the Abramson mentioned wasn't in the band, the band never released on Telstar Records and the article indicates they had broken up in 1995, so they wouldn't be releasing new music in 1996. The "book mention" is published by Cengage, which in my experience custom prints textbook pieces for courses, so this may be SPS. Frankly, I'm skeptical of "directories" that cover thousands of acts in a few hundred pages - I'm not sure how depth can be argued there, and of the two you mention, the first one has 2300 entries, the second has 3600. I'm just not seeing the organic whole of significant ongoing coverage or influence. I'm only really seeing the one good article, and it's not really making a strong case, as it's a summation of their career - they're broken up at the end of the article. However, I will dig through again and see if anything jumps out at me as really "making it" as I would expect. The other issue is that I wanted to compare it to similar acts, but I can't; the really notable indies get a lot of coverage despite being indie, so there isn't the same type of problem. KMFDM,The New York Dolls, Sam Black Church, etc. all still resonate today. In the latter case I saw a photo of one of the guys from Alice in Chains with an SBC shirt or hoodie, and SBC just had a doc film come out about them screened in NY. I just don't see that kind of resonance being shown here, you know? MSJapan (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Trouser Press bothering to have an entry in their print edition is pretty good prima facie evidence IME that a band is of enough note to cover in Wikipedia - for these purposes it counts as a specialist encyclopedia - and the articles make pretty good references. I mean, your argument is literally that you don't believe in specialist encyclopedias. Maybe you don't, but Wikipedia's taken cues from halfway reliable ones literally since it started; and Trouser Press is one of the key notable critical sources widely used across music articles in Wikipedia. For the print coverage - it was a whole other world before the Internet, and I was there; this stuff is evidence IME that this would have been a band warranting coverage at the time, and the material there is enough to write an actually good article from and evidence that more contemporary print would have been pretty much certain to exist - David Gerard (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - FYI, David Gerard I was there, too, my first job working for a small music scene publication called Hot Potato (don't bother googling: you'll find no evidence of it's brief existence!) which was contemporary to Trouser Press. Just so you know, the print edition of Trouser Press had folded before this band even existed, so their only connection with Trouser Press is the listing in the encyclopedia. I'm still troubled by this articles lack of references. One cannot assume based on your argument. That said, I agree with you that they likely received some sort of coverage to merit an entry in the TP guide. But what and where is it? It wasn't in Trouser Press magazine, and as MSJapan points out, the guide has over 3000 entries, indicative of a different (possibly lower?) standard of inclusion than what we deal with at wikipedia. I'm still leaning towards a weak delete until at least something of substance can be cited in the article. The sole provided reference to the zine "Pure" seems comparable to my old employer "Hot Potato", a period equivalent to a modern day blog. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd use the Trouser Press and CMJ pieces to start on recovery, for instance - David Gerard (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        But yours is also a reasoned assessment :-) Currently a bit borderline - David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To make that clear: keep based on sources I found in a WP:BEFORE - David Gerard (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Gerard; no reason a local band can't notable when it receives substantial coverage in non-local media, as shown here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good finds by David Gerard. BigGuy88 (talk) 12:30, 30 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. Sam Walton (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomia.pl[edit]

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

Minor Polish website, no independent third party sources, best claim for notability is a minor award from the Polish government that does not seem particularly notable, given the award does not seem to be discussed by independent media. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. It was major Polish portal about astronomy and space in 2001-2011 (100 000 users monthly, the biggest in Poland, also English version). Now it is not working anymore. Article should stay, but should be updated into historical. _{czart3| reply here} 11:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated an article changing for historical and also updated external sources. _{czart3| reply here} 11:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the sources seem to be significantly written by you, in your capacity as the editor of Astronomia.pl portal. The PAP news piece is based on your quote and press release by the portal, so it is not particularly independent. The only other source is the article on the anniversary from Urania ([67]), but it is not digitized, and I am afraid given your involvement here and possible COI, I'd like to see the article to verify it was not written by someone connected to astronomia.pl before considering it as an independent source. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 28 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. No prejudice against a merge and/or redirect, but clearly no consensus to delete.Mojo Hand (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Homohysteria[edit]

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

Apparent non-notable neologism - no sources that aren't by the same dude. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The subject is explored fairly well in The Declining Significance of Homophobia and it seems to be an issue in sports management here and explored by some when analysing consumer behaviour here. These are not passing mentions. A theory has been developed around the concept. Because of this I am opposed to deletion but if it does happen the gist of it should be merged into internalized homophobia. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources derive from reputable publishers. Plus its written neutrally and in an encyclopedic manner. Also there are literally thousands of neologisms on wikipedia. They haven't been deleted because their usage is gaining traction. Pwolit iets (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge to homophobia. There are no MEDRS sources on this putative condition, and nothing in PscyNet (can't save searches - that is a link to the search page. Seems to be a neologism by Eric Anderson on which to make the public aware of how homophobia operates; WP is not a page to propagate pet theories or neologisms; doing so is a violation of WP:PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to homophobia. The neologism got some traction -- enough to be mentioned in the main article, but not enough coverage sufficiently distinct from homophobia to justify a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as far as notability is concerned. I do not think there is a need for a medical source for a sociological concept, and there are reputable sources; but OTOH that could easily be merged and redirected.

However, I strongly advocate to delete the impact section that reads As a culture becomes less homophobic and there is less of a stigma around physical platonic affection between men, the lives of heterosexual men are improved, as they are less aggressive and physically alienated from one another.. I accessed the source, and while it does quote a few other papers to that effect, (1) it stinks of "pet theory promotion", so I think better sources are required, and (2) it is written non-neutrally ("heterosexual men's lives are improved" -> based on which criteria? I am sure some American evangelicals would be happier if the American society was more homophobic). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Homophobia and WP:SALT. This is utter nonsense in soapbox drag. When trans peoples' unemployment rates match the American median, we can reconsider this article. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When trans peoples' unemployment rates match the American median, we can reconsider this article. Huh... what does that have to do with the price of tea in China, or any WP policy?

Also, "redirect and salt" is contradictory, maybe you meant to protect the redirect. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Meeting on the Isle of Pheasants. And possibly merge content from history, if desired. Sandstein 07:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting on the Isle of Pheasants (Laumosnier)[edit]

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

The artist doesn't have his own page, as of now, so can this be kept? Marvellous Spider-Man 13:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, not having an article on the artist does not preclude an article on the artwork, indeed wiki has a number of articles on children's books as they are notable, but not on the author, or illustrator. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there are articles about this subject on the Spanish and French wikis, with the same sources, but no more. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, due to the age of the subject WP:OLDBOOK may be applicable, although we also have WP:OLDSUBJECT, so more sources may be required? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We had this discussion already. Mduvekot (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Meeting on the Isle of Pheasants covers the historical event depicted in the tapestry. This article is a mere fork of that article, and adds little. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mduvekot at previous discussion. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meeting on the Isle of Pheasants, where the tapestry is already being discussed. Anything useful can be pulled from the article history. I don't see stand-alone notability here. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 28 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 per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Estera Foundation[edit]

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

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 (companies) requirement. Sources mention this organizations primarily in passing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say keep and improve. As much as I hate such PR articles, the foundation itself is definitely newsworthy and there's significant WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:AUD to establish that. In other words, it meets both criteria specified in WP:NGO. //Halibu tt 11:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 28 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 02:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Social Airways[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP - no coverage in major press sources etc. Article is currently referenced mainly to blogs, interview with founder, routine funding announcement, etc. Brianhe (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a good reason why we need to avoid having startups on WP. It's abuse of WP:ENN for misuse per WP:NOTPROMO. MSJapan (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly puffery. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above - David Gerard (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sources and information are both in and of themselves PR, advertising what there is to know, and that's a notorious method of interesting clients and investors, that's why PR churnalism exists, to have companies advertise themselves, since that's the base of why such PR happens, and to let the news media save their money by not having to sacrifice costs. SwisterTwister talk 18:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because WP:TOOSOON. There is one significant mention of the company in an independent reliable source:

Social Airways: social platform makes your flights more interesting from Euronews

If anyone finds more significant coverage like that, I'd probably change my vote. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A particular focus of banned sock-farmer Euclidthalis - David Gerard (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of coverage in RS and pure WP:PROMO. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, the concerns by the nominator were addressed during the discussion. Cavarrone 11:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best Youth[edit]

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

My PROD boldly removed despite that I specifically specificed my concerns, and the fact the band has only released 1 full album 5 years ago and an EP now, the user simply removed it with the basis of there still being sources, but the exact sources listed here are not acceptable, see my PROD explanations. My search at Portugal's largest newspaper online also has found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 02:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The actual PROD comment was : Listed sources are still in fact questionable as substanc and notability since they are not the outstanding coverage needed, my News and browsers searches are only finding few links some of which then only include reviews from indie websites, not something that would exactly be convincing. The Portuguese Wiki actually contains no sources at all, so that's a concern if no one has even cared to at least fix the native Wiki. This was deleted nearly 4 years ago as speedy A7. Comte0 (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Research multiple Portugal's largest newspapers online:

Expresso
Diario de Notícias
Jornal de Notícias
RTP Notícias
Diário Digital
Público

Some were added to the article. I just do not wish to filling this entry with so many sources. Önni (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expresso's article is good.
Diario de noticias actualy talk about the NOS D"Bandada fest, I don't think it is relevant.
Jornal de noticias does talk about the band.
RTP (portuguese public tv) does talk about the band.
Diário Digital doesn't look like a reliable source, and pt:Diário Digital does not exist (it was deleted for lack of reliable sources).
Público article looks good to me.

I also found a review in Les Inrocks : [68]

In a nutshell : a few of the sources are solid and make the article notable. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I concurr with User:Comte0's assessment of the sources. In short: "Expresso (newspaper)" and "Público (Portugal)" are similar, dated from and about the album release. "Jornal de Noticias" and "RTP" are about participation in two festivals (Paredes de Coura, a major one over here, and another not so notorious). All four articles are about the band. The sources cover most of the main portuguese newspappers. A quick search shows at a least a listing at this year's Paredes de Coura festival, also at Correio da Manhã [69], so it covers all major newspapers. Except for Jornal de Noticias, the link has no connection that I can see with the band. Diário Digital sure is not the best of sources and anyway it adds nothing to the other (listing of Paredes de Coura bands). Does it make it notable? I guess it is marginal, they have participated in some of the major music festivals (but as a hot national prospect, not a 'main' band) and they do have one album released. - Nabla (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to ARM architecture. And possibly merge what can be sourced from history. Sandstein 07:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARM Cortex-A73[edit]

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

Spammy article without any third-party sources. If there were any independently-sourced content worthy of merging, ARM architecture would be an appropriate target, but there isn't. Artem-S-Tashkinov also tried to nominate the page for deletion but didn't know how to complete the process. Huon (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge to ARM architecture: I found that source, though it has the stench of a copy-pasted press report; it supports the article's assertions. Since the chip is certainly not (yet?) notable for a standalone article, we can merge it. Of course, it all depends on a single not-so-great source, so... Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:30, 29 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. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irandu Rojakkal[edit]

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

Newly released film. No evidence that it satisfies any aspects of WP:NFILMS. PROD declined without explanation by a single purpose account that is likely a sock of the article creator. Safiel (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm quite unsure why people expect an explanation for PROD nomination. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILMS. Only RS I was able to find, is this one. Anup [Talk] 23:05, 30 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 21:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Osper[edit]

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

Insufficient coverage to establish notability. ubiquity (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable television producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly a vanity page. Producers are not inherently notable, and the subject does not show any indications of significance. Significant RS coverage cannot be found; I'm seeing extremely passing mentions, such as in Makeover TV: Selfhood, Citizenship, and Celebrity, where the subject is listed once in a credit. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's hardly any secondary third party coverage. I only see one credit btw which I don't think would even help towards WP:CREATIVE (if at all it can be applied here). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining all of this and his filmography shows nothing for substantiating independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Upchurch[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, and does not meet WP:CREATIVE. MSJapan (talk) 04:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one-film is generally not enough to make someone a notable filmmamker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is way WP:TOOSOON with hardly any coverage about the subject. One film is also not enough for WP:CREATIVE. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ...absent any opposition to the policy based keep comments after two re-lists. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 05:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A.J. Smith (writer)[edit]

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

As for now, he doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR Marvellous Spider-Man 13:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete writer who passes none of our notability guidelines for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It took some searching since these titles brought up a surprisingly large amount of non-relevant hits, but I found enough reviews for his work to justify a weak keep at this point in time. If we can find the reviews from the UK sci-fi mag outlets then that'd push it to a more solid keep but I won't count those until we see them since we can't guarantee the depth of coverage and all that good stuff. Still, there's enough for a weak keep due to the reviews for his work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found the SFX review, had to go through the Wayback Machine for it though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've contacted SciFiNow in the hopes they can give me the data for their review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These are UK chldren's books. Worldcat[70] shows each of them in several hundred libraries. Since worldcat strongly emphasizes US libraries, this is a quite strong record, and must represent good reviews, because that's why libraries buy books. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 29 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 20:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Salnikov[edit]

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

Delete: does not appear after Google search, to meet threshold of notability for NAUTHOR. Quis separabit? 12:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete small time journalist, whose identity is unclear. The latter would not preclude having an article, but there are just not enough sources to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- potentially unverifiable. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:V and does not pass GNG. Kierzek (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning, Internet![edit]

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

Not notable, nor referenced. Rathfelder (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I stupidly nominated it for CSD before looking at the history. This actually was broadcast on IFC, and still exists on Youtube, but an IP editor trashed the page. It needs updates, but it does appear notable. Jergling (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible name for trying to dig anything up on tbh... Got a mention in a Cracked article by Michael Swaim from 2008 so far: http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-8-best-internet-sketch-troupes-whose-initials-arent-tam/ -Joey- (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. does not appearto have proper evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 28 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TIMBY[edit]

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

promotional article on non notable software company. All the refs are either from their own website, or are press releases, or are mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO. With sections on History, Functionality and Funding, the purpose of the article is solely to promote the business. The company does not meet WP:NCORP; likewise, I'm unable to find sufficient RS to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment promotion for a non notable copany. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the nominator is exact with the analysis, I meant to comment sooner and say that all sources listed are trivial and unconvincing with these being coated with PR and the essence of it; the information itself is also then PR. SwisterTwister talk 00:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be independently notable and is thoroughly described anyway at the founder's bio article. Unless someone wishes to refine the current categories, I wouldn't recommend leaving behind a redirect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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