Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 August	10 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure Capitalist (video game)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Real game on mobile and pc. Various sources which are reliable.Thursby16 (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough coverage to establish notability. RPS review: [1], RPS article: [2], 148 Apps review: [3], Washington Post review: [4], Pocket Gamer review: [5], Pocket Gamer article: [6], Business Insider article: [7], brief but relevant mentions on Venture Beat [8], and Kotaku: [9]. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This virtual video game is legit for mobile, tablet and personal computer it is notable and people play it and there is lots of reliable sources and references for this game.Video gamer boy786 (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notability isn't an issue here. A quick google search will find lots of resources. Ana r chyte 06:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The game is free; it's a basic program where you just go back every so often and expand your company. It may be simple, but there is nothing that would suggest the game is a fraud of some sort. Players start with lemonade stands and buy more, increasing their profits to buy another business.

As the game progresses, buying more franchises costs more money, managers are available for hire to automatically increase profits outside of gameplay, and "angel investors" are used as an incentive to restart the game, and they can increase profits of individual businesses (lemonade stands, donut shops, etc.) by percentages. Halsalmonella (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Very poor arguments here for keeping, almost WP:ILIKEIT. A lot of the sources are WP:ROUTINE and do not cover the game in depth. JMHamo (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already listed enough sources to establish notability regardless of the other poor arguments. WP:ROUTINE doesn't even apply here, it's not an event. Four reviews from reliable sources is satisfactory coverage for video game article. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JMHamo There's not much to cover in-depth. I suggest you play the game yoirself and see what I'm saying.

--Halsalmonella (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pipeline to a cure[edit]

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

Very small local organization. Not every group raising money fora good cause is notable. There appear to me no independent sources. A press release from the notable umbrella organization for which they are raising money is not an independent source. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing particularly good here, here, here and here to improve its state even for local notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another local fundraising org, no coverage, fails WP:ORGDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches reveal nothing to denote notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Lovell[edit]

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

Fails both WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. White Whirlwind 咨 22:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the three awards in the article and the following sources about her book The Opium Wars: [10] [11] [12] [13] These sources seem to be enough to meet WP:NAUTHOR. However the awards are enough to meet WP:PROF IMO, so she seems to pass both notability guidelines mentioned by the nominator. Everymorning talk 00:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those awards are both extremely minor (the former seems to be entirely defunct, and was awarded for less than 10 years, and she didn't even receive it). White Whirlwind 咨 01:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a young scholar, but the awards attest to notability, especially an award for an academic book she wrote. That book is held in almost 1000 libraries, which is significant for an academic work.[14] Other books are held in around 500 libraries. We need to add a bibliography (she has written at least 3 books). LaMona (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep plenty of notability, even if we ignored the prizes. User:White_whirlwind, take a look at this search on The Opium War [15] and take another look at WP:BEFORE and WP:AUTHOR Lovell with a slew of reviews in The Guardian, the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere flies past both.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory - stored some of those links on the article talk page so as not to lose them. Thx. LaMona (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since at least one work was reviewed by the New York Times, this author is probably notable. Bearian (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: White Whirlwind is a respected and accomplished editor, so I took this nomination seriously. I checked out the reviews of the Opium Wars book and added a selection to the article. They are not only in the standard academic journals but also in general literary journals, which convinced me that this relatively young scholar has earned a reputation as a public intellectual. She seems to be accomplished enough to be considered notable by either the academic or the author standard. I would also respectfully disagree that the Leverhulme Award is minor.ch (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A well received history book; two more on Chinese history (not a subject heavily studied in the West; at least 4 major translations, at least one well received. That looks to me enough to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bureau of Fire Protection. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bureau of Fire Protection Region VIII[edit]

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

Local fire department--no particular notability. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bureau of Fire Protection. Just a region of a larger organisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The government agency is notable given that it serves an entire region of more than 4million residents. The fire bureau was most notably involved in the Typhoon Haiyan disaster response and retrieval operations, for which some of their firefighters lost their lives 1, 2 3, the Samar forest fire and even non-fire emergencies in the region. 4 5.--RioHondo (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is it's not a government agency. The government agency is clearly notable. It's merely a territorial division of a government agency. It doesn't need its own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:ONELOC: "Agencies of municipal or other small governments (other than national) are very frequently notable if it is customary for that type of agency to have an article. (Examples are) police and fire departments, mass transit providers, schools, and libraries." Ergo this, being a regional fire department supported by the above sources, meets WP:GNG especially since we also have articles on other regional/smaller government departments under Category:Fire departments of the Philippines.--RioHondo (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think you quite understand what I mean. It's not an independent agency. It's a division of an agency. Many agencies throughout the world are divided into regional divisions, but we don't generally have an article on each of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Necrothesp. If this were an actual agency or even a district, then it could have its own article, but instead it's a mere division. By that logic, we should have articles on every division of every Philippine government agency such as the National Bureau of Investigation or the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Note that, unlike in some countries such as the United States, the Philippines' police and fire forces are centralized at the national and not the local level (i.e. the Philippine National Police and the Bureau of Fire Protection), so there is (as far as I know) no individual police or fire departments for each city, municipality, or province. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the bottom line is whether there is sufficient material to support a standalone page. It looks as though there isn't so a merge is the way to go. Adding information on each of the divisions will enhance the main page and convert the 'Organization' section from bring a laundry list. Just Chilling (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A look at those RS I posted says there is though. Anyway there are only 18 regions in the Philippines and national government services like fire, police, health, etc are provided per region, headquartered per regional center, and manned by regional staff. This isn't merely a division of the agency in the national capital. As per the Local Government Code of the Philippines, there are basic government services provided at the local level such as this. In the same way, each region has its own regional police office such as the NCRPO similar to the Armed Forces of the Philippines having Category:Regional commands of the Philippines.--RioHondo (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Necrothesp. Just Chilling's commentary hits to the core of the issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cited and now clearly notable. Overall consensus to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Betrayal (book)[edit]

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

Uncited stub about a 1999 book on politics. Not notable and completely uncited. Ogress _smash! 22:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It took me a while, but I did find some stuff in Highbeam after I waded through all of the false positives. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well the "completely uncited" is taken care of and the article is now acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug and Mary Lou Nemanic[edit]

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

Promotional and non notable. Too much of a personal memoir, so i assume there's considerable conflict of interest. I tried fixing it, but gave up if their project of their teamwork is indeed notable, the article would need to be rewritten completely, and the first step in doing that is to delete this and start over. DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewer who accepted the article, I may have a little COI here. I'm neutral here. Regards--JAaron95 ^Talk 00:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JAaron95 ^Talk 00:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JAaron95 ^Talk 00:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JAaron95 ^Talk 00:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JAaron95 ^Talk 00:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak keep. The article has addressable issues with tone and format, but it appears the subjects meet WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. So let's get it fixed, not deleted. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Guggenheim Award, United States Hockey Hall of Fame, one documentary has won a film festival category, the other is traveling academic circles and has aired on the metro-area cable channel. AfD Nomination does not meet WP:DEL-REASON, keep per WP:ATD. 009o9 (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ehhh Keep- But it needs some serious cleaning up to do. The article is much too long for the amount of sources that exist for it. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potomac (currency)[edit]

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

Local currency with almost no secondary source coverage. Per organization's last Facebook post (almost 2 years ago), less than 2500 in circulation. Not notable. agtx 21:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some coverage, not enough to sustain notability. Neutrality^talk 22:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now (I would've suggested moving elsewhere which is the best option but there's no target) as my searches found nothing good. It's not surprising as it's a new localized currency. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wendi Knight[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards or nominations. Negligible reliably sourced biographical content. Negligible independent reliable sourcing. Claim that she had a director's credit on the installment of a cookie-cutter porn series whose box cover made a fleeting appearance in a notable mainstream film is preposterously far below the level required to demonstrate notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 3x won of awards, 7x interwiki, for me - notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

for everyone else and per policy - Not notable. –Davey2010^Talk 14:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be said (again) that scene-related porn award wins don't count toward notability. Neither does the existence of other language Wikipedia articles about the subject. How many times will you bring up these invalid criteria? • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someday WP:SUBTROPICALMAN-NOTABILITY will become a blue link, but today is not that day. Until then, we judge notability on existing guidelines & policies, not on personal opinion. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Scene awards to not qualify for WP:PORNBIO, no coverage in independent re;liable sources otherwise. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only scene-related award wins. Even if you count Adult Video News as a reliable source, the AVN article is not enough to satisfy GNG by itself. No other significant RS coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Not enough coverage to establish notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Records (Pakistan)[edit]

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

Tagged as not meeting inclusion criteria since May 2014 and not fixed, one of a nest of articles edited by a closed circle of people with strong suspicions of promotional intent. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very obviously fails WP:CORP and I'm always worried that these articles about record companies can be used to create little walled gardens to insert articles about non-notable artists. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my seaches found nothing good and convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional article, with no RS. Searches provided nothing to indicate it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Business Alliance for Local Living Economies[edit]

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

This article is a press release with no reliable sources to demonstrate notability of the subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 18:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 18:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See the organisation's own text marked as copyright here. I've tagged CSD G12. AllyD (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a non-copyvio version of the article in the history, so I'm going to revert to that. There's a mild assertion of notability here, so I'd like for this to go through a full AfD. If it's deemed non-notable then this would prevent it from being re-created in the future. Since the promotional/copyvio material was added by a clear COI editor, it looks like it's possible that it would be re-added otherwise. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failure to meet WP:GNG. @Tokyogirl79: ~~Would this be eligible for Speedy Deletion per WP:A7 in its current form?~~—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "There's a mild assertion of notability here, so I'd like for this to go through a full AfD." Should have read your full comment, just noticed your name in the discussion, and decided to ping. My apologies,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - It's worth noting this has actually stayed since October 2007 with no significant improvement and more of removing content actually and my searches found nothing particularly good here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justin D. Bibee[edit]

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

Non-notable biography, substantially written (in a promotional tone) by the subject of the article, and reading like a CV/resume. Nothing conferring notability except possibly an unsourced claim that he was "appointed Ambassador for Peace" but not stating on behalf of whom, nor for what reason. Many other claims are made, but they are lacking citations to reliable sources, except for a tiny handful non-notable achievements. NSH001 (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 15:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 15:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given by nominator.Pincrete (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given by nominator.BnS (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Ovo16 (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing better than the currently listed links. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches did not turn up anything to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - author has blanked the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Niccolò Fedrigo[edit]

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

Makes a claim to significance, so not appopriate for CSD, but absolutely no significant coverage in RS, per WP:GNG. North of Eden (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this page was previously speedied under the title Niccolo Fedrigo. Everymorning talk 15:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm just trying to add an industry professional art director to the free encyclopedia Wikipedia. Niccolo Fedrigo was spell in a wrong way. The correct name in Niccolò Fedrigo.

I found links and related articles that can helps to validates the page and I wrote everything with a complete neutral point of you. If you are not familiar with the industry Cannes Lions festival (one of the links) is the most important advertising festival in the world. Be part of the winners is such an honor. Not everything he did is online but I'm sure u can have an idea also browsing.

Mostly the work of these professionals are hide and uncredited but great and for this reason I think it's good talk about work and professionals that are not always nominated but notable. He is a very well know professional in the industry. Take your time to consider and feel free do ask me everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LBPilli (talk • contribs) 15:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to establish notability. There is no evidence the individual won anything at the Cannes Lions - the link to it in the article did not mention the article subject and was removed. I also do not see any claim of significance, so I have CSD'd the original article. The article fails to establish notability for the individual. reddogsix (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately you need to sign in to see the credits because there is a new policy against get contents and repost on other website.

Anyway if this link doesn't count you can se the subjects had won also Silver ADCI (The most prestigious advertising Italian Awards) http://www.advexpress.it/templateStampa.asp?sez=28&info=121061 LBPilli (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway I still don't understand, why there are problems with a professional like this and nothing bed with this article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccolò_Ferrari Please explain cause all the links on this page are broke and the page still there. There is no prove about nothing but in my case also if I provide relevant material and links I can't write this page. If there is a rule that rule have to be the same for everyone.

I don't understand why it's so complicated honestly. There is nothing strange in this article.

Delete - Fails to establish notability. I would also add that I was the one who nominated the previous article for speedy deletion (it was speedy deleted). That article was written by Niccolo Fedrigo himself. I suspect the current article was also written by him under a new account. GLG GLG (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 15:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 15:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Right now this process is a trainwreck; the AfD template has been removed from the article in favor of speedy deletion, and it's since been blanked by its creator, who is also persistently blanking the article's talk page. 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked but couldn't find significant sources. What would make this person notable would be the awards, but both awarding organizations will only show the award winners to members of the organization. This is the strangest thing I've seen, because you obviously use awards as publicity, so not showing them online basically defeats the purpose of giving awards. The other references are either directory listings or his name in the credits on an ad. I have no idea if the latter should be considered a wp:rs, but in other career areas we do not confer notability based on credits. This may be moot since the editor has blanked the page and gone off in a huff, but I can only !vote delete. LaMona (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nabsora[edit]

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

No indication that the subject satisfies any of the 12 notability criteria listed at WP:MUSICBIO – not signed to any major record label; no major awards; has seemingly released only a debut album; lack of significant coverage in multiple, reliably-published, third-party sources; total of 86 hits for their name on Google. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 14:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably also be noted that the creator of this article is likely to have a COI with regard to the subject: see this and this. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 17:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The artist releases their own material similar to that of artists such as tech nine. The references are a clear guide that everything in the article is true and nothing has been written which has not got reliable. Wiki clearly states you should not scare aware those new to this and delete their articles straight away without communicating and offering assistance first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missjws (talk • contribs) 15:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 15:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It meets this criteria and you only have to meet one it says here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles

NABSORA - Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missjws (talk • contribs) 15:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means, add these multiple, reliable, independent sources to the article. A one-off interview with a borough council is not sufficient. Please note that anything written by the subject or anyone close to him (such as the subject's official website) cannot be considered "independent", and that YouTube, SoundCloud and other social media are not reliable. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 16:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have an article appeared in their magazine too Spring 2015 Issue too, which all residents receive via email and post code download. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missjws (talk • contribs) 16:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore his music was independently reviewed on the Fame Music by Big Artists. Which I added to the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missjws (talk • contribs) 16:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the magazine, the online interview/article was published in March; does the Spring 2015 print article significantly expand on it? As for the Fame Music website, one-line user-generated comments do not provide significant, reliable coverage as required by WP:GNG. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 17:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given by nominator.Pincrete (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has valid independent press related to the artist. Music according to google has been released under an independent label too.BnS (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means, add the independent press to the article. Do you believe that the independent label that you refer to could be considered "one of the more important indie labels" mentioned by criterion 5 of WP:MUSICBIO? Super Mario Man ( talk ) 17:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Searches turned up nothing notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Psion (novel series)[edit]

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

Non-notable novel series; no references available that demonstrate it meets WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 15:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The books are self-published (CreateSpace), and held in very few libraries (from 3 to a couple of dozen). These absolutely do not meet wp:nbook. LaMona (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. They appear to be mildly popular-ish in the blogosphere, but not in a way that translated into coverage in reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Dadario Burke[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable. Quis separabit? 12:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 15:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 15:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, incidental coverage in articles about soaps, nothing really about her. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My first searches at News, Books and highbeam found nothing to suggest improvement or better notability aside from the usual stuff as a producer. Considering the vulnerability of BLP issues, it's better to delete and let IMDb cover it. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/Rename. - Nom's reminded that WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Woodham[edit]

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

Delete: 2nd nomination. Article is ridiculous and makes Wikipedia look bad. We don't even know her name, or the most basic life info, except for apparent circumstances of her death; if it was even she who died in the fire. She has clearly been conflated with other individuals/actresses of the same time frame. Substantive improvement impossible due to "sketchy" at best details and no improvements since last AFD made by anyone including keep voters from previous nomination. Quis separabit? 12:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 15:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 15:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IDONOTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. Any person with an article in the Old DND or Oxford DND (ODNB) is certainly notable and we should retain the article. I appreciate that her precise identity is not as clear as desirable, as the ODNB makes clear. I have checked the ODNB article which is a little longer than the WP one. It says she died as a result of returning to the theatre to recover the takings. Sources cited include Gentleman's Magazine which is certainly a WP:RS on such matters. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The entries in various biographical dictionaries are sufficient for someone from the 1700's. It also isn't unheard of that we don't have a first name (and if we did it might be the name of her husband, e.g. [16]) given the time period. LaMona (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An entry in the Dictionary of National Biography means she is undoubtedly notable, even though it is unfortunate we don't know her first name. Or maybe it makes the highly respected DNB "look bad" too? Should be moved to Mrs Woodham, though, per normal British English practice (this is what the DNB uses). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support that rename. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cruze, Rachel[edit]

Note: Article was moved to Rachel Cruze. Kraxler (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not appear to be a notable author. Having several guest appearances on TV is not necessarily a strong claim to notability. Lacks coverage in reliable sources, with the sources in the article being non-independent ones. Other sources I could find online, with the exception of an interview by Mint.com, are articles about tips by her rather than about her, or as being the daughter of author Dave Ramsey. I am not against a merge to her father's article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the sources given below, I'm changing my !vote to Keep, although I'm not withdrawing this AfD and I'll let an uninvolved admin close this when the AfD has run its course. Should the article be kept, the article should probably be moved to Rachel Cruze. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find any reliable sources, and the ones on the article are all non-RS. Note, though, that this article was created today. We could userfy it and ask the creator to take it through AfC. I say this because I see that the person is creating other articles, and I they have similar sourcing problems. At AfC the editor may get better instruction about sourcing. (And naming of articles, since "Cruze comma Rachel" is obviously not how it's done on WP). LaMona (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about changing article title to Rachel Cruze.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, neither WP:GNG nor WP:AUTHOR is met. I don't see how sending it to AfC could change the basic lack of notability. I'm always wary of articles that appear to be commissioned to advertise the subject of the article and increase their notability, rather than document existing notability. --bonadea contributions talk 10:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous references here and here and here and here and here and here. An author of a NY Times bestseller clearly meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: Only the SFGate interview since to be reliable. The remaining sources, as I mentioned above, are more about her father, or about information by Cruze and not Cruze herself. Still, it's interesting to see that she's a NY Times bestseller, and I have no idea how I missed that information during my searches. I can't withdraw the AfD now though, since there are already two delete !votes above, so this AfD has to run its course. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5:, it is perfectly acceptable to withdraw your nomination in light of new information. I have AfD-ed articles only to find article defenders coming up with sources I did not know about, or guidelines that I did not know. Just write "nomination withdrawn" and let the closing admin decide. Flexibility is the essence of being open-minded, something I admire in Wikipedians.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: Well, based on my experiences (this includes occasionally making non-admin closures on AfDs), generally, even if the nominator withdraws a nomination or changes their !vote to Keep, sysops tend to keep AfDs open. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, GNG is about significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and having (co-)authored a book that was on the NYT list of bestselling advice books for a few weeks does not automatically mean that a person meets GNG, nor WP:AUTHOR - it means that they are good at marketing, which we already knew, and if they still don't appear in multiple independent sources, there still isn't sufficient notability. I'm afraid my !vote stands. --bonadea contributions talk 07:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadea, the guideline says The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique and Cruze and her father originated the idea of not paying allowances to children, to pay them by commission, as it says here, an article in the Chicago Tribune which is prominently about Cruze.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: In this case, I think it would depend more on how Cruze contributed to books. If, for example, she is listed as a co-author but the primary author is her father, then that may instead strengthen the father's notability. From what it looks, Cruze mainly seems to be known for, for a lack of a better term, assisting her father in the latter's views. And remember that notability is inherited so the discussion should focus on whether or not Cruze is notable on her own. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: If anything, Cruze appears to be an equal partner with her father in promoting financial literacy; earlier of course her father may have had the dominant role, but clearly now, at 25, Cruze is held as an authority. There are further instances in which Cruze, herself and alone, is cited as an authority on various financial matters, such as here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: As tempted as I am to change my !vote (despite being the nominator), the article only seems to confirm my thoughts in my nomination: that most of the sources regarding her online are about statements by her, and not statements about her. If there are more sources that are actually about her then maybe things would be different. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So this article is not much Cruze but all Ramsey -- is that what you're saying? Sure seems to me to focus pretty much on Cruze, maybe 80% of the text.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Or what about this source -- seems pretty much like all Cruze.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: Well that settles it then. I'm changing my !vote accordingly. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: I admire folks such as yourself who can change their minds. After all, I've been there done that.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And where's the reliably sourced evidence that "not paying allowances to children" is a notable concept that's taken root as a thing that's meaningfully discussed by sources other than her? That criterion doesn't give a notability freebie in the absence of reliable source coverage to every single person who ever had an original thought — it still requires RSes to document that their idea has meaningful currency in public discourse. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, having read the article it appears as if the co-authored book Smart Money, Smart Kids may be notable but Cruze possibly isn't. Having appeared on a number of tv shows is what a lot of writers of books that become a no. 1 nytimes bestseller usually do (doing the talk show circuit,) that doesn't make them notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? The book did not make speeches or get interviewed by reporters.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Making speeches and getting interviewed by reporters don't count for anything toward whether a person passes WP:GNG or not. A person gets over GNG by having other people talk or write about them in reliable sources, and not by talking or writing about themselves. An interview is permissible for verification of facts after the notability has already been covered off by other sources — but if the interview subject's basic notability is still in question, then the interview doesn't contribute anything toward resolving that. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cruze is regarded as an authority on personal finance, which is why she has been extensively quoted, and there are articles here and here which clearly focus on her and her crusade for greater financial literacy and sensible spending habits. What more do you need? Do you want in-depth discussion on Cruze's personal stuff, like where she lives, what she eats, her family relations (although her story about growing up 'Ramsey' is interesting, arguably)? This does not make sense. Rather, what is interesting is her views on personal finance. And here she's had a major impact. For me, that's a better way to assess notability -- impact -- clearly Cruze has advanced public discussion on saving, substituting debit cards for credit cards, budgeting, no allowances for children, buying houses, etc. Like, if you had to list the nation's top seven authorities on personal finance, especially as it relates to families, Cruze would be on that list. Clearly she's notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't see that the Chicago Tribune article makes the claim that Cruze or her parents invented the concept of making children earn money rather than giving them an allowance - which would have been a very peculiar claim, since it's not a new idea at all. None of the concepts mentioned in the article originated with Ramsey or Cruze, and they are not credited as the inventors, either. They are simply the authors of a book discussing ideas that have been around for a long time. (See, for instance, this survey from 2012, two years before the Ramsey-Cruze book was published, which states that "The vast majority of parents [in the United States] do require their children to earn their allowance.") --bonadea contributions talk 12:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but Cruze has popularized the parental strategy of not giving allowances without work being done. Remember, as contributors to Wikipedia, it is not our job to rethink the decisions of editors and newspapers and magazines, who clearly agree that Cruze is notable enough to write about her, quote her, do in-depth reporting on her, consider her as an authority on the subject of personal finance; there are 12 references in the article as of August 17 2015. Nor should we second-guess the public when by its purchases, it brings a book to the top of the NY Times bestseller list. Rather, we should defer to the community's guideline which says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. And that is the case here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources in article sufficiently demonstrate notability. The Chicago Tribune article especially, it is a reliable source that was written about her. Yes, it talks extensively about her book and quotes her extensively, but it's far from a self-published source, or a book review. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources as required by the guideline, seems to be rather widely recognized as a financial expert, and has written a New York Times bestseller. She therefore quite plainly passes the WP:GNG. --Biblioworm (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG; multiple independent, reliable sources discuss her, so there is no issue with notability. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney School (Boise, Idaho)[edit]

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

School is nowhere notable enough to be included here , unless there are more sources about why it is so popular. RbAxM33320 (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was not listed in the daily log. I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 9. • Gene93k (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NRHP listed properties are notable even if they no longer exist. It is a matter of retrieving the documentation needed to expand this stub. • Gene93k (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gene. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, NRHP listed buildings are notable. Camerafiend (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NRHP listed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NRHP listed.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guernsey Dairy Milk Depot[edit]

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

Not every historical place deserves an article. This is probably not notable enough. Maybe create a website or blog about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RbAxM33320 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 9 August 2015‎ (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/2015 August 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An NRHP listing means that the documentation to expand the article is out there, though it may be offline. It is a matter of collecting the information. • Gene93k (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, NRHP listed properties are notable. Camerafiend (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Every NRHP location has extensive government reports and documentation as to its listing validation and history. --Oakshade (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid articleBnS (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'. NRHP listed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:SK # 1 and 2c. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day New York[edit]

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

Nearly four years after it's last AfD (admittedly by me as well), the article is still poorly sourced, a haven for OR, and still has little claim to notability outside NYC. The "Google Test" returned over 300k results, but most are either from WNYW, or short articles on sites like Gawker covering viral clips of the newscast. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 09:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 15:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 15:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The program has received in-depth coverage from reliable sources: [17][18][19][20] Pburka (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of those help source what is already in the article. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 18:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're engaged in a discussion regarding notability of the topic. If you wish to improve the article, you can do so without involving WP:AFD. Pburka (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never said we weren't, rather I meant to say that those didn't establish notability globally or nationwide. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 20:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement that notability be global or nationwide. That's not consistent with WP:GNG, WP:NOT, nor any other policy I'm familiar with. It also contradicts the well known essays WP:LOCAL and WP:LOCALFAME. Pburka (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Ibanez[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)

A part-time newspaper columnist originally from the Philippines. There were a tonne of refs, but they were to his YouTube channel or his columns. I'm unable to find any independent, reliable refs, but his name is common. Prod was removed without comment. Bgwhite (talk) 07:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. There are quite a few things out there, but mostly to primary sources. Can't find anything on news or search to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There don't seem to be adequate third-party refs to evidence notability. —George8211 / T 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse sockpuppet !votes, see SPI

Keep. This article must be keep because of all his contributions not only for Filipinos but also to other nationalities. He can further inspire more people. He has a strong influence from Philippines and from other countries. He has been active in charity and other humanitarian deeds. He started modeling at an early age. As a journalist, he is very popular. Dubaibuyandsell (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. I vehemently believe that this should stay. Ed Ibanez has many supporters from different parts of the world who recognized his passion in helping others and his write-ups. Edglobalsupporter (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Keep~~. This must be officially accepted and stay. He is a journalist, so definitely he features other people which his goal to promote good things to humanity. He wanted others to be inspired through his good deeds. Dubaibuyandsell (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Dubaibuyandsell (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

Keep. Recommended to keep this article or profile. Please refer www.kabayanweekly.com . He has a regular column and he was also featured several times. Edti1980 (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Edti1980 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. I am an avid reader of Ed Ibanez articles and i learned so many things from his writings and his life story. He has done many charitable works in the Philippines in other countries and as far as i know he prefer doing charity and humanitarian works discreetly but he needs to be recognized as a journalist and model as well. He is not partimer because he has a regular column. He is doing journalism for the service of the people and i can attest that he has helped thousands of people from difefrent countries. He used his influence as a journalist to reach out others. I salute for his pure heart and intentions. This must be retained so that many people will follow his footsteps. Otiphus (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. I am not in the Philippines now and i heard Ed Ibanez activities and his works. I highly appreciate this man. My Family is always talking about him. Tom alvarado (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Non-notable writer who seems to have a lot of fans here, and only here.--RioHondo (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse sockpuppet !votes, see SPI

Keep. When a person has huge numbers of supporters and fans it means he is popular and recognized. Ed is renown not only in the Philippines but also in other countries. He is known as journalist and a humble person. When a person owns a column it means he is talented and has and edge from others. There are millions people who wants to become a journalist but never have an opportunity because being a journalist is a calling or vocation. he used his talent and skills to reach our others. People know him from different parts of the world. When you google his name, you could see him. Keep this and many people will be happy. Dubaibuyandsell (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Dubaibuyandsell (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

Keep. Just one forum shows how the people are supportive to him based on the discussions they point out about Ed Ibanez ^[1] Edti1980 (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.mikeygatal.com/connect/index.php?topic=7032.10#.Vc1yylOqqko

— Duplicate vote: Edti1980 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

Keep. A person is definitely notable if he has fans, good deeds, well-respected by people not only from his country of origin. Ed also popular in United Arab Emirates. Please check his FAN PAGE.^[1] Edti1980 (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ed-Iba%C3%B1ez-Official/443471612405436?fref=ts

— Duplicate vote: Edti1980 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

Delete - I am somewhat familiar with the person as I have seen some of his blogs online. With that said, he hasn't appeared to have been covered in reliable sources; in fact, a search for "Ed Ibanez" reveals several false positives. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse sockpuppet !votes, see SPI

Keep. He has a regular column from a prestigious First Filipino Newspaper in UAE that made him notable compare to others. Edti1980 (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Edti1980 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

Delete Many fans on Wikipedia it seems, but still not notable. SOXROX (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. the enjay 36 12:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is notable in abroad and in the Philippines. 94.204.242.213 (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 94.204.242.213 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Let the people like him inspire other people instead of things which are not significant to humanity. He is a good man and he has proven many things. I am not a fan but I speaking that he is worth. 94.204.242.213 (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: 94.204.242.213 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

Collapse sockpuppet !votes, see SPI

Keep. I strongly suggest to keep this profile. A person with many fans means he is notable because of his/her good works as journalist and all his charity activities. He was featured several times. So for me keep this. I was searching Ed Ibanez name in Wikipedia because I was anticipating for it and I am happy that his name is included. Asamanko (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. I will be one of the people to become happy if Ed Ibanez will remain in Wikipedia. I just search his name because I know is very popular. I am grateful for all his articles and the inspiring words he bestowed to us. Though i have not meet him yet in person, i highly recommend him to be in Wikipedia. Thank you. Adriaed (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gemalto. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Todos Data System[edit]

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

Unsourced promotional article, almost entirely created by SPA accounts (see Talk:Todos Data System for a good summary). More importantly: company is non-notable, Google search reveals only passing mentions and previous PR activities. Delete and redirect to Gemalto, who acquired this company in 2010. GermanJoe (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: per nom to Gemalto (a disaster of a COI WP:REFBOMB itself, but notable). Vrac (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 08:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - A Google search come up with the name and address of this company. And also the fact that they have been working with Swedish Handelsbanken. It is leaning towards Keep for me. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Annual Quarterly[edit]

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

A zine based in Cleveland suburbs with no proof of notability or importance. The only webpage that refers to the subject is its MySpace profile, which seems to have been last active in early 2007 according to the only archived version (2012). The username of the article creator suggests that it's the creator. TheGGoose (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. While a google news search returns lots of hits, that is due to the commonness of the title of this zine, but none seem to refer to this particular zine. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means unfortunately as my searches including the simplest found absolutely nothing to suggest this is more than an independently operated magazine and therefore no improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Copy moved to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Jeffrey Boehm. Waggers TALK 13:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Boehm[edit]

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

This appears to be a hoax (though a good enough one that the blatant prong of CSD G3 renders it inapplicable) and if it's not, then it appears to be unverifiable. Scrolling through the results of a a Google Books' search for "Jeffrey Boehm", there's not one that could be about this topic. Yet, given the claims in the article, you would think there would be at least mentions. The article claims he was "decorated for valor at the Battle of Grenada". A search of <Boehm "Battle of Grenada"> returns only this article and mirrors.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. A google news search resulted in zero hits about this individual. A websearch returned quite a few hits, but none which seem to be about this Boehm. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I am not convinced that this is a hoax. It reads to me like what someone found while researching their family history. There are several things in it that I do not think are quite right. I do not think there were awards for valour at that period. However promotion form the lower deck was unusual, but not unknown and promotion may have been the award mentioned. Describing him as being promoted to 2nd and then 1st lieutenant is a misunderstanding: there was only one rank. The senior lieutenant in a ship was 1st lieutenant, the next 2nd lieutenant and so on. However these are understandable mistakes for an amateur researcher to make. The role of his vessel at Trafalgar cannot be quite right, but a brig, which transmitted (rather than translated), messages would be credible. Such vessels were stationed out of the line of battle, where they could see the Admiral and repeat his signals. Nevertheless, while his career is interesting, I see no evidence of his being a notable officer. I searched the National Maritime Museum and The National Archives websites and found nothing relevant. However that does not prove this to be a hoax as the archives may not be listed in sufficient detail for him to be mentioned. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was going to nominate it myself when I noticed someone else had, searches found absolutely nothing. The fact this has never been edited, sources or information, is concerning and the author was a SPA. Recently, I've been searching for old articles like these that get lost in the midst such as this one because all signs are saying this is fabricated. I agree with Peterkingiron in that it may simply be a family history but there's nothing to save this and even Henry Gaston Bunn which I improved recently had better sources. SwisterTwister talk 18:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Chances are strong that this is a hoax. A few thoughts:
- No references exist for HMS Lamerton in connection with the Battle of the Saintes. The actual Lamerton was built in 1940 for use in World War II.
- No evidence has been found that the Royal Navy ever included a "supply ship," or any other kind of ship, called HMS Vargas. Among other sources, no ship by this name exists at List of ship names of the Royal Navy (U–Z).
- The Battle of Trafalgar, of course, is extensively documented, and the National Archives' database includes no record of any individual named Boehm in the Royal Navy for this battle. Significantly, the Pickle's commander John Richards Lapenotière is included, demonstrating that the National Archives contain muster roll information for the Pickle but that Boehm's name is not found there.
- For what it is worth, van Welks does not appear to be a surname in actual use, and the only Google hits for "Elizabeth van Welks" are in this article.
- A 2014 edit [21] even declared the article a hoax, but was automatically reverted.

On the whole, the available information seems to point to a long-lived hoax. Calamondin12 (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm leaning towards this being a hoax as well since I can find no actual sourcing for him - which is especially troubling when you figure that this article makes some fairly big claims. If no one objects, I don't mind closing this one a few days early and moving this to Wikipedia's hoax archives. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it's not a hoax (and it does appear to be) he was only a lieutenant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Unfortunately, everybody's rationale for deletion as given on the talk page will be deleted as well, but the consensus is clear. --MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of delisted National Register of Historic Places properties[edit]

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

Please read talk page discussion. This list is unnecessary and its content is, or can be, included on pages dedicated to NRHP sites by county. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per talk page discussion. In a nutshell: The content intended to be covered by this article is already covered in a more useful and complete fashion in other lists maintained by WP:NRHP. See e.g. National Register of Historic Places listings in Jackson County, Oregon#Former listings. — Ipoellet (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments on the talk page. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 13:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments on the talk page. When there are 1500 potential list entries, you can't put them all on a single list, and the best way to split them up is...by the geographic lists where they're already listed. The current page has no content worth keeping: it's just 14 entries, i.e. less than 1% of the total. Nyttend (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and other editors abover. WP:LISTCRUFT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

PS, I've restored the article's talk page and moved it so that it's now the talk page for this AFD. Nyttend (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Level 3 Communications. --MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Lotus (company)[edit]

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

The only source of this article is WP:SPA User:Ddosguru who is also the creator of this page and has been removing content from subject's rival company CloudFlare. This article clearly does not meets WP's notability standards for WP:COMPANY and has been created for vested corporate interests.--Badnaam (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge very selectively (I'm thinking about a sentence) to Level 3 Communications, the parent corporation. Sources offered or found do not demonstrate independent notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check your data. The company is clearly notable on many counts. Also, someone who isn't employed by any company in this industry cannot have a "vested corporate interest." My assumption would be that User:Badnaam is a competitor of these companies. Ddosguru (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Independent South Asian Cine Fest[edit]

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

My searches found nothing good to suggest improvement here, here, here and here. At best, this could be merged elsewhere but I'm seeing a good target. I also notice they've given several awards but this would be minimal improvement at most. SwisterTwister talk 03:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local Rutgers event. The NYT articles ifs from their "Regional" section , which is no more significant for notability than any local newspaper. DGG ( talk ) 07:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo advert of local film festival, there are a few trivial mentions, but no in-depth coverage, fails WP:ORGDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeeth kollam[edit]

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

Only sources are self-published, notability not established WWGB (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for a BLP, it lacks reliable sources. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 05:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches found nothing good at all to suggest improvement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Wolves[edit]

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

Minor amateur ice hockey team that seems to no longer exist since 2009, but has been article tag'd with needing cleanup, since Dec 2008 and additional WP:V sources since April 2013, but no main work has been done to article for donks. scope_creep ([[User talk:scope_creep|talk] 03:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and shovel the dirt over it: This is an amateur rec league team, according to its (last updated two years ago) FB site. The links in the article are broken, and there are zero Google News hits, never mind any which would fail WP:ROUTINE. Hell, there aren't any hits on the Irish Google: [22]
... and on that Facebook site, one of the last posts was "Wolves training session tomorrow night at The Living Room sports bar just off O'Connel St, starts at about 9pm," which I present without further comment. Ravenswing 05:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 05:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor-league teams generally don't merit articles in the first place, but this draft does not meet even the minimum requirements of GNG. Primefac (talk) 11:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mmm, I'll pick a point here: minor league teams are almost always highly notable, with hundreds or thousands of sources which satisfy the GNG, the tendency of certain sports WikiProjects to disparage the minors as worthless notwithstanding. This, however, wasn't a minor league team -- it would have to had climbed up several rungs to get that far. This appears to have been a beer league squad. Ravenswing 16:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right on both counts. I was thinking minor league players such as in football or rugby. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and above comments. Nothing to show notability for a club team. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kumudu Munasinghe[edit]

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

Is a non-notable academic - fails WP:PROF. Has been tagged for notability since June 2014, without any further reliable sources cited. Dan arndt (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no news stories about him linked in article and he isn't notable enough RbAxM33320 (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Delete. He doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:PROF with the current references, which contain no substantial content about the subject. A google news search provided no additional evidence. However, a google scholar search returned that his work has been cited 434 times overall (since 2007), and 359 since 2010. I am not conversant enough to know if that is good or bad, but it appears that it might mean that he meets Criteria #1 of WP:PROF. If I'm wrong about the number of cites (in other words, 359 is a low number), than I would argue for delete. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Onel5969 the important number is the H-index, which for Munasinghe is only twelve, which is fairly low - what you'd normally expect from an associate professor. I would normally expect at least 40 for someone notable as an academic. Dan arndt (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thanks Dan arndt - Wasn't sure so I figured someone would answer that question for me. Will bear that in mind as a guideline in the future. Based on that, I've changed my assessment above. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per rationales by Dan arndt and per WP:GNG -- Chamith (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All Appropriate Inquiry[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Interlaker. Boleyn (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possibly worth a redirect to Phase I environmental site assessment. Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing how the two relate enough for a redirect. Interlaker (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Regarding the above comment, it's already included at Phase I environmental site assessment in the Background section. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC

Delete as per nom. Unlikely to ever constitute a 'stand alone'.Pincrete (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Raza Jaffari[edit]

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

Previously CSD A7 recreated with no improvements and does not have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO all references are first party and a book reference to support nothing in the article. News searches bring nothing up to support notability. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP that fails WP:GNG sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 05:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given by nominator.BnS (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article on a 17-year-old that has as its main source a facebook page. Fails to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. soft deletion equivalent to an uncontested PROD. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stunt Rally (video game)[edit]

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

Sourced almost exclusively to unreliable sources. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please {{ping}} me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 05:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.mikeygatal.com/connect/index.php?topic=7032.10#.Vc1yylOqqko

[2] ttps://www.facebook.com/pages/Ed-Iba%C3%B1ez-Official/443471612405436?fref=ts

[1]

[1]