Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 July	18 July >

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 speedily deleted by TomStar81 per CSD G12 (copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ASSISI EMHSS[edit]

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

Unencyclopaedic advertising. Adam9007 (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this reads so much like a brochure that I assume there must be a copyright violation. Even if not, the article gives not indication of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked and, surprisingly, there doesn't appear to be any copyvio (from the web at least). Unless I've missed something? Adam9007 (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rpclod and Adam9007: Seek and ye shall find :) Csd-G12 copyright violation, 100%. I've axed it accordingly. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:42, 18 July 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. Daniel (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jandi Lin[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and there is not adequate sourcing to support the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Fails Gng and PORNBIO and is a blp so must be sourced. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only award nominations. A one-paragraph writeup in Complex is not enough to satisfy GNG. Additional RS coverage not found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject clearly fails the applicable SNG and coverage is neither substantive not reliable enough to satisfy the GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:52, 20 July 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. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax, and author blocked for attempting to falsify other articles by substituting his name ffor the names of successful players. JohnCD (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Allport[edit]

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

Autobiography of a non-notable tennis player. They don't pass WP:GNG due to a lack of coverage (only minor coverage of a Twitter argument), and don't pass WP:NTENNIS either, as "junior players are presumed notable if they've won at least a junior Grand slam title, have been in the top 3 of the junior ITF world rankings or can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG."- none of which apply to this person. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet WP:GNG#Tennis. Amortias (T)(C) 22:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am choosing to improve the article to address the concerns raised in this discussion, I am happy for my profiles on ITF and ATP to be used as a reference to all things on my page. If you still feel like this does not suffice, please contact me or the tennis association to confirm all information given. CJAllport 23:41, 17 July 2015

@CJAllport: You or your tennis federation are not reliable sources. ITF and ATP stats will show you exist, but not why you're notable, as the coverage is standard for any young tennis player. Having only won a minor junior tennis tournament (not a Grand Slam), you aren't a notable enough tennis player. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As is the case that I have only won one minor junior tennis tournament, however after that win I achieved a world ITF juniors double ranking of 2 in October 2013. Meaning that I do pass one of the requirements given in Joseph2302's earlier message.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CJAllport (talk • contribs)

Please provide a reliable source to show this, claiming to be notable without a reliable source is not valid. I cannot find any source saying this is true. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - this is clearly a hoax. None of the "references" even reference the subject.--Rpclod (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - yep, we've been scammed. The tennis websites link to Callum KEMPE. starship.paint ~ KO 07:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NTENNIS or WP:GNG. Even if the player has changed his surname as claimed on the talk page, it is still not close to notability (and the player linked has a different birthday). The doubles tournament he has claimed to have won, was won by Bambridge and Evan Hoyt [1], but it wouldn't have met notability criteria anyway Also, if you look at the user's contributions you'll see that the user has been vandalising other tennis articles by changing other player's names to his in tournament draws and results tables. Fazzo29 (talk) 10:40, 18 July 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. Daniel (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Qafzezi[edit]

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

This hints very close to being fabricated as my searches including the simplest found nothing and the listed sources provide no link or otherwise evidence of confirmation. It claims he's the brother of Leon Qafzezi who has an article but even Leon seems a little better albeit also in need of better sources. I was impulsed to speedy delete and may be a good case of WP:TNT, but in the chance there are good foreign links, here we are at AfD. SwisterTwister talk 22:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing anything in my searches other than this message board. I have no idea if it is fabricated or not, but doesn't meet notability based off my research.Theredproject (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Comments: He is a producer/director of documentary films, some of which won some minor awards. His documentary L'Albanie d'Enver Hoxha ran on Arte and has some decent coverage in WP:RS such as this, but coverage doesn't say much of anything about Robert Qafzezi himself. He had an article on French wikipedia but it was deleted for copyrightvio. So definitely not a hoax but not enough to get him past WP:CREATIVE. Vrac (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah I definitely wouldn't delete it on the basis that it is a suspected hoax, because there isn't really a proper way to find out using the external links or references (and he may also actually exist.) But at the moment I certainly wouldn't say the article is suitable for wikipedia either.

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaushal[edit]

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

This article has so many issues it's better to start anew with help by someone familiar with this subject. Of the references, either some have no link, no longer work or aren't very substantial. The best results I found were here but none of them look solid enough to improve the article. The article was partially cleaned by User:QualityCircle here but for an article existing since October 2005 with no substantial improvement, it's probably better to WP:TNT. SwisterTwister talk 22:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, delete: The article is written from a mythological perspective; it has to be rewritten, from scratch, from an ethnological perspective, citing reliable sources. -Mohanbhan (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.ChunnuBhai (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - TNT is rarely a good rationale for deletion, but it does seem to apply here. Carrite (talk) 18:03, 24 July 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. Daniel (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Silence of the Sea[edit]

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

Another highly advertorial article from indef banned editor Talentforfilm, this once again fails to meet WP:NFILM -- and is also really a WP:COATRACK article to promote a lot of the industry and government entities who "star" in this "documentary." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (G11) - promotional article without independent reliable sources (not in the article or via Google). Almost the entire content fails basic requirements for WP:NPOV and encyclopedic WP:TONE. The movie is not notable, and Wikipedia is no venue to promote such campaigns. GermanJoe (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article suggests self-promotion.--Rpclod (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of coverage in independent sources has been provided. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:21, 20 July 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. Black Kite (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheng-yen's lineage chart[edit]

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

Family lineages of holy people, however descended from important figures they are, do not belong on Wikipedia. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 08:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indiscriminate collection of trivial information. -Zanhe (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator does not understand what this article is. It's a Dharma transmission lineage, not a family lineage. This topic is discussed in many of Sheng-yen's publications, but also in independent sources, e.g. 1 2 3. Compare to an article discussing the apostolic succession of Roman Catholic bishops or a list of the Kings of England.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial information, Shen-yen is neither the Pope nor the King of England. It is of guru-shishya interest only. This is one of many articles like it that document the religious lineages of Buddhist figures created by the same user that has no use. Information about their dharma lineage, if notable, would be included on the article of the religious figure. Ogress _smash! 02:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Sheng-yen. Nothing in the article suggests why the lineage itself is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or have as a collapsible element in the main article. It is no different from any succession chart. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Sheng-yen. There is a difference between a family tree or political, regnal or papal succession and a "spiritual transmission" of a dubious nature — see Lineage (Buddhism) for what it's about. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while apostolic succession is well-documented for Popes and Primates, this dharma lineage appears not to be well-documented. It's a virtually unsourced list of mentors and mentees. If somebody could, very quickly, add sources, and explain thier significance, I'd be willing to change my mind (please, no Zen jokes). A selective merger ("smerge") would be OK by me. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I voted delete but I honestly ask: documentation would suffice to make you change your vote to notable? I ask because several other similar lineage charts were deleted as there is already a central Zen lineage charts page (NOT up for deletion) that lists, with citations, that covers until at least 1600. The more recent dharma transmissions, it seems to me, should be left to individual pages as there are many, many modern Zen masters (in the inclusive sense of Chan, Seon and Thien) and they mostly all talk their inka on their wikipages anyway. Until about 1600, the lineage charts are sort of semi-mythological. Ogress _smash! 20:18, 21 July 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 19:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oath of the Hindu physician[edit]

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

Questionably notable topic and my searches found nothing that suggests better information about this, here, here and here. All of them seem to copy from an original source and there's no further or solid information about this and, if notable, it should at best be mentioned elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A notable topic for a potential encyclopedia article, but unsourced, so no showing of notability and no reason to believe that the English version presented is accurate. An article could explain the history and impact of this concept and how it differs from Western medical culture. Hlevy2 (talk) 08:25, 24 July 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) Kraxler (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Espoir Tsevie[edit]

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

It seems the author started some articles that are sourced but I can't find any for this one (no stats, official website, club affiliate, etc.) and, at best, may have been short-lived if it ever existed. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence this club exists, likely hoax. Giant Snowman 09:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Come on guys, it literally took 2 seconds searching RSSSF to find evidence of the existence of the club and confirmation that they played in the Togolese second division in 2014 (They played in group B and are noted as Espoir FC (Tsevié)). Also references:

here (as Espoir) in Division 2 in 2012
here to Espoir playing in the second teir in 2009-11,
here qualifying for the second division playoffs in 2006,
here getting to the 1/8 finals of the Togo cup in 2005,
here getting to the 1/16 finals of the Togo cup in 2002 and playing in the second division.

I'll update the article to reflect this history.

The Togo second division might initially be organised in a group stage, but this is obviously a club that has a reasonable history playing at a not insignificant national level and there are clear references to the club qualifying at least once for the national playoff stages and also playing in the national cup competition on multiple occasions and so it meets general consensus held at WP:FOOTYN that teams playing in national competitions are notable. Perhaps @GiantSnowman: might wish to reconsider and if so @SwisterTwister: withdraw? Fenix down (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more inclined to keep because of the links but I'll let any other interested users comment for now. SwisterTwister talk 16:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: - I Googled them, found nothing. Happy to change to Keep now though. Giant Snowman 17:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The slightly different presentation of name made it a bit more difficult. If kept, I think this should be moved to Espoir FC (Togo) in line with clubs of similar name. Fenix down (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per good work from Fenix down.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:03, 23 July 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 nom's withdrawal.. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rendu Jella Sita[edit]

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

I couldn't verify that this meets WP:NFILMor WP:GNG. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Paulbrock. Boleyn (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Rendu Jella Sita

Comment: Difficulties with pre-internet Indian films notwithstanding, this one is not unsourcable[2][3] and seems to have made it into the enduring record as a film which was the debut film for a notable actress. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep: In hasam magazine, An acclaimed film-critic wrote article about this film, and later it has been published as a part of the book Jandhya marutham too. Apart from that, many film magazines, film pages in telugu news papers also featured articles about this book on the occasion of 25 years of film release. I think this film is notable in that aspect.--Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pavan santhosh.s, do you have references from that which you can add to the article? Boleyn (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Boleyn, Yes. But in the form of telugu book. It is available to purchase online here. I can add some more information and citations too, but I've to know whether citing a telugu book is OK? --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pavan santhosh.s, citing a foreign language book is fine. Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn per convincing comments above. Boleyn (talk) 11:56, 21 July 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 no consensus. Significant disagreement exists in this discussion regarding the depth of coverage the subject has received. Ultimately, no consensus has been established from this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Randolph Fladmark, Jr.[edit]

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

I don't think this article passes WP:SOLDIER. There are a few articles that specifically mention Fladmark so it may pass GNG but I'll still not certain. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails SOLDIER and GNG. Also, the article's creator has stated he is the man's son, unaware of WP:COI - see WP:ANI#Oscar Randolph Fladmark, Jr., which I initiated. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. BMK (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly GNG notable when the individual gets a notice of his death published by the Associated Press, United Press, and International News Service. Nominator argues that WP:SOLDIER overrides the GNG, which he agrees, it meets. GNG trumps all other guidelines. There appears to be some history between the people here today and the author that was brought to ANI, which may explain why we are here today. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, weren't those stories generated by the crash he was killed in, and not obituaries, per se? BMK (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. They're all about a car crash that killed four people, not about Fladmark in particular, so that does not satisfy GNG. Also, AFAIK, I'm the only one the article's creator has a history with. I didn't initiate the Afd (or even think about it until it was raised by someone else in the ANI discussion). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course by concentrating on his death, you are ignoring the three articles contemporary to his combat awards and the biography housed at the University of Pennsylvania archive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said it may pass GNG which overrides everything including WP:SOLDIER. It doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER to me but I'm not sure about GNG either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - regretfully as there seems to have been a lot of work put into this article by many editors. Although clearly a skilled pilot with a fine service record he doesn't seem to have received "significant coverage" in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An editor has opined that "GNG trumps all other guidelines", which is not true. There is no policy which states that, and in fact the GNG guidelines themselves are only a (rebuttable) presumption of suitability as a stand-alone article. If an individual's only noteworthiness is as a soldier, I submit that they should meet WP:SOLDIER before qualifying as a stand-alone article. Softlavender (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument that an essay trumps the General Notability Guideline (GNG) is just silly. Opine that! Notability essays are for people on the borderline of meeting the GNG but their professional standing pushes them over into inclusion. Anyone who meets the GNG is eligible for a standalone article no matter if their occupation is tinker, tailor, soldier, or spy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The GNG is a part of the WP:N guideline. It is subject to all the limitations of the policy WP:NOT, including NOT OBITUARY, NOT NEWS, and NOT TABLOID among others. It is also limited by the requirement for significant non-routine coverage, and that's the technical argument against those who think the GNG is the basis of WP. The relationship of the GNG to the variosu special guidelines and essays varies. Some of them provide additional areas for notability, some limit it. I consider the MilHis essay on notability an example of the ones that are widely accepted, and can serve both to extend or to limit it. Basically, this article is a human interest story about a not particularly distinguished military officer where the interest is the irony of surviving a very dangerous military career to be then killed in a routine highway accident. That makes a good newspaper story. It does not make a good encyclopedia article. The sources are minor or local or fail not obit. GNG is appropriate when used to justify something of encyclopedic interest, but should not be stretched to justify what is not. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:SOLDIER is so full of shit, most notable soldiers/sailors/airmen meet WP:GNG before they meet WP:SOLDIER and are then held up to the latter standard rather than the former. Le petit fromage (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple references, including full biography on the Smithsonian website.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Smithsonian Wall of Honor doesn't appear to be particularly exclusive or have any other requirement other than a "passion for flight". The size of the inscribed name depends on how much you donate to them, not their achievements.[4] Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Pennsylvania houses a biography of him in their archive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The university has an Eighth Air Force archive, which as a whole may (or may not) be notable, but not necessarily each component of it. His biography shares a box with "American Red Cross & 8th USAAF Combat Rest Homes for Combat Fliers, March 1942-March 1945, undated" and "The Sky Was Never Still: Favorite Poems of the Eighth Air Force-draft copy, 1994". Clarityfiend (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The biography runs for 51 pages, but will cost $10 a page to scan. I would say that if the University of Pennsylvania retains your biography, The Associated Press writes about your awards, , The Associated Press and United Press writes about your death, and writes about the lawsuit following your death, you are notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I would (and do) say the biography is unpublished and written by who knows whom (maybe even the son), universities retain lots of not particularly notable stuff (as I have already shown), the accident reports are routine and not just about him, a notice of a wrongful death lawsuit by his widow signifies little, and the AP article was in 1944 and therefore likely World War II patriotic morale boosting. A search of newspapers.com brings up very little, other than the car accident and one mention of the lawsuit. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't supposed to engage in original research, or read minds: "likely World War II patriotic morale boosting" whatever reasons they noted him, they noted him, making him notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, but we are supposed to read the sources the article is based on and determine if they support a claim of notability, and are not simply the result of a one time event, like a death in a crash. And we aren't supposed to assume that because something of unknown content is in the repository of a library it therefore must support notability. We have to know the content itself to make that determination. BMK (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can already see that his Associated Press coverage began in 1943 and continued after his death. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As near as I can tell there isn't a single source after 1955 in this article - so what 60 years? Some coverage at the time, none now. That really doesn't sound notable to me. Anotherclown (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The scope and breadth of the coverage about Fladmark in the full range of sources provided demonstrate notability by any standard. Alansohn (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Alansohn.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MEMORIAL (which is policy) and WP:SOLDIER. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEM reads "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements." which even the nominator says the article "may pass GNG". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:SNUGGUMS, can you or can someone post links or scans of the many wartime stories that ran in the Argus Leader and Sioux Valley News, I assume that you must have read them before voting to delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources not withstanding, WP:MEMORIAL states " Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements". As other users have previously said, he doesn't meet the notability criteria listed at WP:SOLDIER, so I brought up WP:MEMORIAL. That's all I have to say. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't read those sources, how can you or any other editor assert that they fail to support notability?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires "significant coverage" which it defines as "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. " If an article only says that he received an award in a paragraph, it is sufficient to be "significant coverage". If it said he may or may not have received an award, then it would require original research to say that he did win an award. Combine that with his Associated Press and United Press coverage of his death and the lawsuit after his death, and the 51 page biography at the University of Pennsylvania, you have an article, and you have Wikipedia defined notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I think it's been fixed up enough to pass GNG. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. Looking at all the references, how many are actually about him? 6 and 15? And it's pretty hard to say what 6 is trying to assert, given its rather odd positioning in the article: "During World War II, Fladmark^[6]". 15 is just a routine announcement of a medal awarding. All the rest are about the accident or the lawsuit or other people. Where is the "significant coverage" demanded by GNG? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" is defined as "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." What original research is needed to extract the content?

The use of "Oscar Fladmark's World War 1 draft registration" and "Mrs. Oscar (Pethryn) Fladmark (b. 1896) papers" does seem to be OR to me (footnotes 3 and 4). If he is notable this information should be able to be found easily in WP:RS, not in personal papers. Anotherclown (talk) 00:26, 26 July 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 19:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Regional Director[edit]

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

I couldn't verify its WP:NOTABILITY. Last AfD only had 2 participants and was closed as no consensus. I'm hoping we can now develop a consensus; it has been tagged for notability for 7 years. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Iunaw, KvnG, Msnicki, Boleyn (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same reasons I offered in nominating this page to AfD last time. The sources to support notability under WP:GNG simply do not exist. Msnicki (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 20 years ago, Microsoft led the way and programs like this might have been of notable interest. These days though, it's all too reactionary, too inward looking. Those working in the field outside Microsoft take little interest in what's happening within there. It's possible that this is notable, should independent attention be being given to it, but that is (IMHO) increasingly less likely. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:27, 18 July 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. Four reviews have been added after the nomination had been made. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Green Thumb[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Appears to fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books. Google Books and Google Scholar searches reveal little to support this article. Neelix (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it meets WP:GNG. A reception with 4 citations has been added, thanks to Tokyogirl79 showing this book is notable.Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 21 July 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amjad Tarsin[edit]

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

There is very little to show notability. The second and third source are not Reliable, and the rest are about his single accomplishment of becoming the first full time Muslim chaplain appointed to a Canadian University. VViking_TalkEdits 00:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks the depth of coverage to meet WP:BLPNOTE and WP:BLP1E certainly applies. Flat Out (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sounds like an interesting person, but nothing indicates that WP:GNG notability criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, and I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no good target and my searches found nothing particularly good here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 18:02, 20 July 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 19:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Pylypchuk[edit]

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

Profile of a non-notable artist. damiens.rf 18:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found no independent sources. Theredproject (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my sweeps of US news, Russian media, international news did not find much to meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:49, 23 July 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mayra Calvani[edit]

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

Non-notable writer. It's hard to find independent third-part references about her. damiens.rf 18:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well known Puerto Rican author. I wonder why the nominator has been recently dedicated to the deletion nominations of Puerto Rican related article? It has to be a coincidence. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if she is well known, I can't find it. A google search finds non-authoritative blogs (including the subject's own), Amazon book-selling sites and the like. I have not finding any reliable sources that indicate notability, much less that she meets WP:AUTHOR criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tried quite a few search terms in English and Spanish, but I can't come up with anything that would help with notability. The Spanish entry has a longer ref list, but like this entry, the references are either self-published or insignificant mentions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a search for her name without quotation marks and found nothing that would really help show that she meets notability guidelines. At best I found this interview through BlogCritics, which isn't the strongest of sources on its best days. (They have editorial oversight, but it's still sort of unverified.) I can find nothing to suggest that she's a well-known author and while self-publishing does not automatically mean that someone will not pass notability guidelines (Hugh Howey is an example of someone who can become notable), it is extremely difficult for people to pass. (Amber Quill looks to be a publishing company, but from what I can see now her work is self-published.) Simply publishing, be it through a publisher or via other avenues, does not give the automatic notability it once did years ago. The sources in the article are entirely unusable, as they're primary at best - and merchant sources should not be on Wikipedia in any format, so I'm removing the Amazon link. I also don't really see where this nomination was the result of any bias or agenda, if that's what Tony is implying. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons cited above. Search did not pull notable references.Notypos (talk) 21:18, 18 July 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. Sam Walton (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Barton[edit]

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

Not finding any coverage for the subject of this unsourced BLP, does not appear to meet GNG or NACTOR. All of her roles appear to be minor. J04n(talk page) 17:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of course as there's not even much at her IMDb, not even something that could suggest moving elsewhere. My searches found nothing significant and this is vulnerable to BLP issues and given that it's existed since 2007. There's nothing to add or improve the article. SwisterTwister talk 21:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. My media sweeps of national news, entertainment-related news, did not find any mentions to establish notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:16, 23 July 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. Also rename to List of wars named for their duration. Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Years' War[edit]

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

This is a rather peculiar disambiguation to me. As a disambiguation page, this information doesn't make sense. There aren't any wars called "Years' War", so there's no need to disambiguate in this fashion (WP:PTM may apply here). However, could we make use of it somehow? I thought about turning it into a list, titled something like List of wars named after their duration, but I'm not sure if such a list is notable. Thoughts? -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is more of a "list of wars named according to duration", but I don't see that collecting such a list is knowledge, as opposed to trivia. Seyasirt (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's better grammar than my suggestion. If the result is "listify", this is the name I would support. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a hundred years. It's not a proper dab page, just a mildly interesting bit of trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as List of wars named for their duration or similar (tidied up, annotated, indicating participants each time, etc), and include the Six-Day war (currently a "See also") etc too - it's trivia, but mildly encyclopedic. Just not a dab page. PamD 11:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per User:PamD. Not a disambiguation page as we define them, but still has some navigational use, as enough wars are referred to by their lengths, either as their usual names or recognised alternative ones, for some confusion to be possible (particularly when, as in one or two of the cases listed, there is some dispute about their exact lengths). PWilkinson (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep buit renamed. This is a potentially useful dab-page. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced by the idea of turning it into a list as I don't think it would be a useful list, but it certanily isn't a valid dab, all partial matches. Boleyn (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A clearly made-up term for a group of wars that don't need a disambiguation page or list. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of wars named for their duration and remove the disambg tag. I can see people wanting to look this up. bd2412 T 12:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of wars named for their duration per bd2412. North of Eden (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename - per BD2412 it seems a valid search term. Anotherclown (talk) 23:47, 25 July 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 19:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marsha Jordan[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 16:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm seeing enough through a gbooks search to justify keeping per WP:ENTERTAINER (maybe even WP:PORNBIO) if not WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article does not indicate that the subject meets WP:PORNBIO criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't have to indicate -- the sources just have to exist. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Rather minor and non-notable actress it seems to me with no significant sources aside from what I happened to find here and here. There's not even much at her IMDb to suggest further improvement. @Rhododendrites: What particular sources are you talking about? (my searches found nothing that appears significant and are mostly movie guides that mention her) SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 18 July 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 19:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Salgado[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited from the fact that he worked with Uriah Heep and Robert Crouch. ubiquity (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - My searches found nothing and this isn't surprising as he's worked mostly behind the scenes and his band has no Wiki article, which I would've also said move to one of the bands but there's no good target, and again, he was mostly working production. SwisterTwister talk 17:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no coverage in WP:RS. Vrac (talk) 19:58, 23 July 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 last Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fountainhead School. No different rationale presented this time and last discussion was quite lengthy. (Non-admin closure) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fountainhead School[edit]

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

No evidence of Notability. No sources given. Sulabhvarshney (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought all educational institutions are notable? And there are sources. Adam9007 (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to normal outcomes for this kind of school. It is affiliated to the International Baccalaureate and goes to year 12, so is a secondary school. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:39, 18 July 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 19:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wushu at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's changquan[edit]

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

This was part of a very large AfD closed as No consensus mainly due to the size. I've limited this one to Wushu events all of which have very few competitors as an added point.

For the first nomination please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athletics at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's 100 metres.

The rational for deletion is identical to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Women's 65 kg, mainly that the subpages for this level of event is just too much detail. All that is necessary is Wushu at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games which as all the medal winners. WikiPedia is not a WP:NOTSTATSBOOK with few or any of the athletes being notable. Similar AfDs include for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wushu at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's weapons
Wushu at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's barehand
Wushu at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's nanquan
Wushu at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's taijiquan
Wushu at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's compulsory taijiquan
Wushu at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's taijijian
Wushu at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's broadsword
Wushu at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's cudgel
Wushu at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's sanda 60 kg
Wushu at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Men's sanda 65 kg
Wushu at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Women's changquan
Wushu at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Women's weapons
Wushu at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Women's barehand
Wushu at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Women's nanquan
Wushu at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Women's taijiquan
Wushu at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Women's compulsory taijiquan
Wushu at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Women's taijijian
Wushu at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Women's straight sword
Wushu at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Women's spear

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per my first over-ambitious nomination. Mainly WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. ~ Rob^Talk 21:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per my and others comments re Pencak silat at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games – Women's 65 kg AfD. Sometimes something notable occurs in a particular event (e.g., an unexpected upset of a notable athlete), but that needs to be clearly set forth in the article itself.--Rpclod (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The articles have no significant independent coverage. Similar to the aforementioned pencak silat articles. Papaursa (talk) 19:39, 23 July 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 no consensus. Sandstein 20:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United Patriots Front[edit]

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

Twenty dudes who hold a couple rallies doth not notability make. They're a tiny far-right splinter group of a larger far-right movement that no one's bothered to write an article about, and their coverage in reliable sources is completely minimal. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:USERFYIT, perhas reincarnate it as "Reclaim Australia". this and this source seem to claim they are a splinter group of Reclaim Australia. The RA article is poorly sourced but a lot of hits turn up in Google News for it so RA probably has notability. AadaamS (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AadaamS: - Reclaim Australia: Reduce Immigration is a totally different group. They were a defunct political party in the 1990s. The Reclaim Australia being referred to here is a far-right protest coalition that currently does not have an article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Drover's Wife, ok I had this suspicion from the content of the info on the RARI page. So I would then suggest that this page be reworded & renamed to "Reclaim Australia" as a stub. AadaamS (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which article? I don't think this provides any useful information about Reclaim Australia (which is not a clear-cut case for notability either) and this does not remotely pass WP:GNG in its own right. It needs to be deleted and then if someone wants to write one on Reclaim Australia we can have that discussion separately. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Drover's Wife, now that the creator of the article has shown up I think it's best to WP:USERFYIT until its notability is more clear-cut. My suggestion was to rename this UPF article to "Reclaim Australia" but I agree it's better to delete this article. So I change my vote again. AadaamS (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – totally, it's not notable and I would have doubts about Reclaim Australia also – Hshook (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete or possibly userfy. Besides one recent event, there's not a lot of decent coverage. That could well change in the future, though. Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I am the article's creator, this group has since held another public event as seen here which again got media attention and is the main force pushing for their upcoming nationwide rallies on July 18. They aren't the same as Reclaim Australia, there was a public sit between them two, which is how this far right faction formed, and RARI is a separate group altogether. This group is quickly becoming Australia's version of EDL. As stated, it could well change in the future and I believe we're about to see this. There is a lot more I would like to put in, but most of the more controversial things they have said/done are written in blogs, hardly credible for Wikipedia. I believe the media will shine light on that soon. Erico993 (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Erico993, the notability of this subject is borderline I think you are better off userfying it (see WP:USERFYIT) and perhaps reincarnate it as "Reclaim Australia once the notability of either "Reclaim Australia" or UPF is beyond doubt. AadaamS (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverage of an event is not coverage of the actual organization itself. The organization itself does not need to be known in context to understand the event. Furthermore, the event is not notable. Esquivalience ^t 04:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait before deleting this page until after the July 18 rally, projected numbers marked as 'attending' on the facebook event pages are around 4,000. There has now been media interest as apparently, one of the members of the United Patriots Front are planning on bringing firearms. Erico993 (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook isn't a WP:RS and so cannot be used as evidence for notability. We also cannot rely on future events WP:CRYSTALBALL. If you wish to write about UPF I think it's better that you perhaps create a page named "Reclaim Australia" because that turns up many more hits in Google Search for sourcing to verify notability. UPF could then be a subsection of that new article and redirect there. AadaamS (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy for now per WP:NOTNEWS, until (and if) the subject meets the GNG. Miniapolis 17:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait 24+ hours - George Christensen (politician) will address a rally tomorrow and on the front page of ABC news online is this. There's a federal "Halal food" investigation - this is notable. See also The Daily Stormer#Reclaim Australia and Halal certification in Australia#Inquiry into third party certification of food -- Callinus (talk) 09:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also SBS news.com.au theaustralian 3aw.

That's about the group this splintered from, and has no bearing on this article. George Christensen has nothing to do with these people. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have started the Reclaim Australia article. St Anselm (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Erico993. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am in favor of the lowest possible barriers to articles about political parties, their youth sections, or their leaders, without regard to size or ideology. This is the sort of material that readers have every right to expect a comprehensive encyclopedia to include. So my primary argument is in accord with the Policy of IAR (Use Common Sense to Improve the Encyclopedia). Moreover, there clearly exists sufficient independently published coverage of presumed reliability to merit a GNG pass, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 18:27, 24 July 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sijadu kaPotelwa[edit]

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

Minor local singer in South Africa. Article states he has released no album. He was nominated for some local awards but has not won any. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG in a major way. DreamGuy (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom Gbawden (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't disagree with the recommendations above. If someone does try to beef up the article, the may want to look at [[5]] and [[6]].--Rpclod (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any evidence of passing MUSICBIO, and the sourcing is not substantial enough to meet WP:CREATIVE or GNG. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 21 July 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 19:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DMTV (Bangladesh)[edit]

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

Deletable per WP:BALL Arr4 (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the nominator, the subject channel does not yet exist. Even then, proof of notability will be needed.--Rpclod (talk) 02:59, 18 July 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 19:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BBQ Pit Boys[edit]

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

Very few non-primary sources found on Google. I dream of horses (T) @ 09:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What do you think of this [7]? It's listed among others in the article so not sure if you would consider it in-depth. I will hold off my vote for the time being. --TTTommy111 (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - everything on that page is ligitaimate to their uprising to one of the top grilling shows in the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B128:398C:0:16:73BC:4B01 (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Alexa: I have added more primary sources. (T) @ 03:33, 3 July 2015 (PST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one third party source, from the Daily Mail [8], mentions the BBQ Boys only in passing. The balance of the sources cited are YouTube videos and blogs. Even the HuffPo reference [9] only mentions them in passing. Google searches just don't turn up reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. This is an age when anyone and everyone's cat can be a YouTube star and still not meet Wikipedia's standard of notability. See, e.g. Other stuff exists for another take on this. Nothing against the Boys: they're just not notable. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - There are a lot of sources, but none of them talk about the subject of this article in any significant way. Instead, they're all about particular kinds of food, recipes, and the content of their videos -- barely mentioning the "Boys". While that speaks to some sense of notability, there just wouldn't be enough for a stand-alone article here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:13, 17 July 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 19:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monomyth (band)[edit]

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

Google search shows no secondary/tertiary sources. I dream of horses (T) @ 09:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I thought I found some references, but those were to a different band in Nova Scotia. I see nothing indicating WP:BAND notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:12, 18 July 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 no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seyed Mohammad Hosseini (Showman)[edit]

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

Not a notable person, COI, terribly written. All red links under the "Television" section. WP doesnt even have the shows' articles. Fazbear7891 (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I linked to his Persian article. Sufficient coverage of him and mentions of his awards, including Radio Host of the Year and the like. It looks like he was forced out by the Ahmadinejad regime.[10] —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hmm, I would say keep if he is notable and has received good coverage in his native language but my searches found none so I hope others can find them. SwisterTwister talk 17:52, 20 July 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Girls[edit]

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

Potentially non-notable bad. I dream of horses (T) @ 00:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a little press but it doesn't seem enough yet.[11][12] Colapeninsula (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, a quick check of their social media shows they have a grand total of 13 twitter followers, and a performance at pride is the only info I seem to be able to find on them. Azealia911 _talk 21:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "They are currently scheduled to make their debut public performance at NYC Pride in 2015." Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Rpclod (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the best references you can come up with are all social media and video sharing sites and like then you've got a long way to go to meet GNG, IMO. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:51, 18 July 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 redirect to History of computers. MBisanz ^talk 19:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interconnected era[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a webhost for essays. I dream of horses (T) @ 00:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of computers. It's not complete rubbish, and the sources might be useful for our readers. Bearian (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - interesting college paper material, but not a Wikipedia article.--Rpclod (talk) 03:22, 18 July 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 19:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fonzi Thornton[edit]

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

Associated with notability, but doesn't seem to have any of his own (unless we regard DJs on Sirius as notable). Orange Mike | Talk 02:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I would've said move to one of his best known works but I'm not sure which one is the best, my searches found results here, here, here and here to confirm he has associated with several people but there's not much to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 17:58, 20 July 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disney's All-Star Battle[edit]

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

I could not find any reliable sources to state that it ever aired. The Snowager-is awake 02:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All mentions on Google look like they are copied from Wikipedia in some way - either by mirrors, by websites that collect material up for deletion here or otherwise reference us. Also, our article Disney Channel Games and Disney's Friends for Change Games and their sources do not make any indication that such a thing actually exists, nor does searching the Disney website. This looks like a hoax to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as my searches found nothing to even suggest the slightest good coverage. It seems the author made accurate edits including Bad Girls All-Star Battle so I'm not sure what happened with this article. SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zendaya, Bella Thorne and Debby Ryan aren't going to take time out of their budding careers to participate in this; we have a WP:MADEUP candidate, and alarm bells go off with the line "competing for $100,000". Usually, that would be solely for charity (unless somehow Disney wants to bizarrely make their actors look entitled), and even the celebrity editions of most game shows give a lot less to charities. Also, that author's "accurate" edits to BGASB were thrown out as original research, so there's no leg to stand on here. Nate • (chatter) 09:27, 18 July 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

X Factor World Teens Edition[edit]

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

Zero hits on Google for this game show. Also not mentioned on Sheeran's article. Probable hoax. The Snowager-is awake 02:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references have been found for this show, which would undoubtedly generate large numbers of results (reviews/commentary/press releases/blogs/etc.) if genuine. Appears to be a clear hoax. Calamondin12 (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would've and was going to nominate it myself as my searches found nothing for this particular show. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honestly I would have used CSD instead... The results in the table do not cohere at all and the names of the contestants are blatantly fabricated. Claimed judges and hosts have never been on such shows (at least assuming the stated roles) and a simple google search returns nothing but information on "preceding" shows. The biggest dead giveaway would be the fact that there are no references whatsoever. -PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 03:11, 21 July 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. The consensus of those commenting are that there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the General Notability Criteria. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arcata Community Recycling Center[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Arcata and Eureka Community Recycling Centers

Articles for deletion/Arcata Community Recycling Center

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

As much as I love conservation, this article unfortunately may not be notable as my searches found no good sources aside for mainly a lawsuit; results here, here and here along with possible results here. One of my last searches also found here that says it is nationally recognized as a model recycling center but there's not much weight for notability. The article basically hasn't been improved and I'm not any possibility with it closed now. FWIW, I considered keeping it since it at least had two sources but I'm still not seeing much. SwisterTwister talk 03:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this was previously brought to AfD and closed NO CONSENSUS: [13]. Carrite (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge to Arcata, California#Environmental innovation. I'm seeing it referenced and mentioned many times in significant ways in books/papers from the past few decades, but there's no slam dunk source that I can find (and I'm just finding out that my HighBeam and Questia accounts expired :/). Some of the sources are about environmentalism in Arcata more broadly, which makes me think there could be an article on that subject. Regardless, it could easily be added to the section in the town's article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to that. SwisterTwister talk 21:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites (talk · contribs), you can renew your HighBeam and Questia accounts at Wikipedia:HighBeam#Apply or renew your account and Wikipedia:Questia#Apply or renew. Cunard (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is going to be a GNG pass here as the object of multiple instances of substantial, independently published coverage of presumed reliability. THIS is coverage in the Eureka Times-Standard, for example. Bear in mind that this company has been open for 45 years... Carrite (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HERE'S some coverage of the closure which preceded the restart mentioned above via Lost Coast Outpost. Carrite (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And THIS is coverage of that same closure in the Ukiah Daily Journal in case that last source and it's press-release-heavy content doesn't do it for ya... Carrite (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was weird that the Times Standard didn't mention ACRC until incidental mentions started flooding in in 1975. I believe that the reason is that the facility was started under a different name, as an enterprise of the NORTHCOAST ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER, as this 1971 article intimates. Carrite (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the problem, THIS snippet on expanded hours makes it pretty clear that the original name was Northcoast Environmental Center. Carrite (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've removed the promotional bullshit (and flags for same), corrected the erroneous origins information, and put the article into an acceptable WP state of repair. Carrite (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Carrite. The coverage in the Times-Standard and Ukiah Daily Journal is sufficient to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 01:29, 27 July 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 19:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Concepts & Design Inc[edit]

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

My several searches found absolutely nothing (aside from a few links here) to suggest this can be improved with good sources or is notable. The article has been added since July 2007 but never actually significantly improved and I strongly suspect this was COI editing which I wouldn't mind as much if it was a good article but it never has. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spammy B2B software company article of unclear notability. Refs provided are incomplete, mostly unverifiable, and rife with press release and promo content. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just one of many e-discovery firms. No reliable sources are referenced.--Rpclod (talk) 03:28, 18 July 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. Sam Walton (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best Practices, LLC[edit]

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

This article is highly promotional to start, but more importantly the company does not appear to have sufficient secondary source coverage to meet notability requirements. In the secondary sources cited, the company or CEO are tangentially mentioned or quoted, but they are not the subject. Although this company's name makes it tricky to Google, I have been unable to find further secondary source mentions. Agtx (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Several trivial mentions, some of which are in independent sources, but no significant coverage. The only source that might possibly qualify as non-trivial is the inc.com case study from 2001, but I don't think that cuts it on its own. The company's website has been repeatedly spammed to various Wikipedia articles for the last couple of years, so it does seem as if they have tried to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform. --bonadea contributions talk 09:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional and fails to assert notability. Zeus ^t^{| u | c} 00:02, 19 July 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before We Lose[edit]

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

Part of a promotional walled garden built around Cristhian Andrews. Non notable film. Lacks reviews, coverage, awards, recognition. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It exists and it was shown at a few film festivals, but neither of those things are elements that would automatically make something notable. It can make it more likely, but it's not a guarantee. I just can't find anything about this film other than a handful of festivals announcing that it will be shown. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found nothing in the article or online that suggests that WP:MOVIE criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 03:35, 18 July 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 19:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason International Company[edit]

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

I could've PRODded this but I wanted a consensus to give it weight (in case of recreation) for this non-notable company with no good coverage. Although I'm not actually from Arkansas, I'm a frequent visitor and I'm not familiar with this company and it's not a major employer of the area. The best my searches found was this (only one page) and this (nothing significant). It's from December 2008 and although it has quite a bit of info, there aren't any good sources and I'm not seeing any signs of improvement. This is mentioned at Remo Jacuzzi and although his article looks better, I'm not sure how notable he is. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article spends most of its words on Remo Jacuzzi and the Jacuzzi family. Nothing shows that the subject itself meets WP:ORG notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:38, 18 July 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. Michig (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Abell[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Nothing indicating that he passes WP:NACTOR or any other standards. Has a lot of minor parts in movies, mostly non-notable movies. I admittedly didn't review every single movie, but a pattern was clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've suggested moving elsewhere such as Soldier of God (2005) for which it seems he won two awards as listed at IMDb and my searches found results here, here, here and here. However, nothing to suggest solid and independent notability so, although he has achived quite a few movies, there's not much that can set this apart from the IMDb profile (which is more acceptable and lenient with pages). This is also probably best deleted as a copyvio was added here (by SPA Lynnmetts) until removed and it's worth noting this has stayed since May 2004 here. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider those awards, but since none of those film festivals have been established as notable here, I really didn't give them much weight. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a list of films is not sufficient to meet WP:NACTOR criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 03:40, 18 July 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 redirect to To The Black Moses. MBisanz ^talk 19:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Travolta Cooper[edit]

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

Notability Zigmundbratwurst (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This filmmaker's notability would derive from his two feature films. Neither has been distributed theatrically or received wide attention. The sources may be considered questionable as well. The Hollywood Reporter would be an exception, but that is merely a snippet about the Bahamas International Film Festival. It is not about the article's subject and the Festival itself is arguably not notable, though this point's relevance is questionable... The Festival was founded in 2004 and is not considered major by any standards. Zigmundbratwurst (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To The Black Moses, which is the subject's only apparent claim to notability. The film broke local records in DVD sales, seriously. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking local record sales, in theory, is not necessarily notable. Nevertheless, the claim is unsubstantiated. The source, which seems legitimate, says 10,000 copies of the DVD sold after categorizing the sales differently. This claim itself is not backed up anywhere else. Would, in theory, 10,000 sales meet notability standards for the film? Certainly not, when considered alone, for the Director... The claim of distribution deals and theatrical releases are substantiated nowhere and there has been little to no coverage in the United States. Coverage seems restricted to The Bahamas. Zigmundbratwurst (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:59, 17 July 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 no consensus. This article has been relisted a couple of times, and no clear consensus has developed.

I would like to make two observations, to be considered if this article is re-submitted to AfD in the future: 1. "Not really something of huge notability in the present day" is not an issue... Wikipedia has lots of things that are not notable now, but were clearly so in the past! The question to be considered in this discussion is: "Is there any evidence that the subject meets the notability criteria at any time", not whether it meets that criteria now. For example, First Geneva Convention was completely revised and rewritten for the future Conventions, but the First one was notable when it was first created, and so remains so now, even though superceded. 2. Whether other articles on similar subjects do, or do not, exist is irrelevant to this discussion... the discussion is about this particular article (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carnaby Street (radio programme)[edit]

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

Cannot see why how this local radio show is in any way notable: the article's sources certainly fail to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If not independently notable, some content could be selectively merged to Manx Radio, which presently only has a passing mention of the program. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if the rationale of deleting this article applies, then in my opinion it applies to the vast majority of radio programmes on Wikipedia. The articles regarding radio shows on BBC Radio 2 for example, have no greater depth nor could they be described as any more 'notable' than the article discussed. Also in my opinion the description in the context of a local radio show is also flawed, as Carnaby Street has a wide listenership throughout the UK and overseas through it's transmission over the internet. It is part of the Category:Manx Radio programmes and also the Category:British music radio programmes, and as such fits the context of those categories. The article also conforms to the WikiProject Isle of Man. Harvey Milligan (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2015. (UTC)

Harvey Milligan When linking anything please use [[]] instead of {{}} as it transcludes here, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 01:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to give an opinion re. this programme's merits, but I think it is fair to say that most, if not all, BBC Radio 2 programmes have a larger audience than this is likely to have and so can be considered more notable, even if their articles don't necessarily live up to that. RobinCarmody (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article, thought it very good and cant see why it would have to be deleted - other than out of cultural snobbishness. There are many articles on Wikipedia ranging from the cosmos to pornagraphic actors. Does that mean that whatever doesnt fit within a narrow spectrum (or a persons perception of such) needs to be deleted? I read many articles on Wikipedia an I am pleased that it gives information on such a rich mixture of topics. Keep the article on. T. Dench — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.217.65 (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no conspiracy of cultural snobbishness on Wikipedia, nor the other way round either. I suppose you are the sort of person who thinks 1960s pop music is still being "persecuted" by the "establishment" while in fact being part of the very same establishment which does indeed still persecute other forms. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the issue is not whether the article is well-written or not. The issue is one of notability. I struggle to find any authoritative references online, but some of that may be due to the popularity of "Carnaby Street" in general. I did find a few somewhat bloggish (and probably not authoritative) references.--Rpclod (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-"Carnaby Street on Manx Radio is the True Sounds of the Sixties". MiAmigo. 4 May 2014. Retrieved 10 Jul 2015.

-Hardman, Matthew (29 Oct 2014). "Manx Radio to link up with Radio Caroline". RadioToday Industry News. Retrieved 10 Jul 2015. Also, Chris William's "Carnaby Street" programme will air from Radio Caroline's newly restored radio broadcasting ship – the MV "Ross Revenge" on Saturday 15th November.

Highly anoraky stuff, not really something of huge notability in the present day (as you seem to acknowledge yourself). RobinCarmody (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It still conforms to the topic regarding radio programmes, and as I stated earlier is within the WikiProject Isle of Man.Harvey Milligan (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2015. (UTC)
Keep The article is actually an asset for Wikipedia to have. It would be worse off without it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, but I cannot understand why this article is proposed for deletion. As earlier stated, I believe it conforms to WikiProject Isle of Man. In addition I cannot see why it is eligible for deletion under A7, A10 or A11. I whole-heartedly believe in the research I undertook to create the article, and stand by the content of it. There is no justified reason for its deletion, save a spurious and furtive supposed "reasoning" in the initial proposal. A proposal which I would argue, is wholly without credible foundation. Harvey Milligan (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2015. (UTC)
Keep There is nothing wrong with this article, and I feel sorry that the writer has had to constantly defend it. It is informative, factual and legible. I agree with the comment that "Wikipedia would be worse off without it." No structured agrgument has been put forward only opinion. I see from the proposers talk page that he has a history of readily putting pages up for deletion. Unsigned !vote added by User:82.132.222.210 at 14:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but these purported arguments in favor of keeping the article are irrelevant from the perspective of Wikipedia AfD analysis. The question is whether the subject is notable as evinced by reliable sources. That is why I provided two potential references, that unfortunately are not from clearly authoritative sources. I am not arguing for deletion, but I think that the subject's notability is borderline at best and suggest that those advocating on its behalf focus efforts on finding reliable sources and indicating why the subject is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I have not found anything sufficient to support notability, I recommend delete.--Rpclod (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The notability argument is tenuous at best and if applied in this context would thereby, in my opinion, have to be applied to many other articles on Wikipedia (example:- The Morning Show (Minnesota Public Radio), Studio X, Dial M For Pizza or Jakestown). Such articles as those used as an example show the proposal is flawed within the context of TheLongTone's description as quote:- "a local radio programme" or Rpclod's argument of quote:- "purported arguments in favor of keeping the article are irrelevant from the perspective of Wikipedia AfD analysis. The question is whether the subject is notable as evinced by reliable sources." As those articles referred to in the examples listed, neither include any more reliable sources (if indeed any sources are referred to at all) nor can they be seen as being notable within the context of the contributor's argument; for if as he asserts Carnaby Street (radio programme) is "irrelevant within the context of Wikipedia AfD analysis", then this criteria must apply to the examples I have listed. If such rationale is to be applied therefore, then by virtue of the reasoning, the same rationale must again be applied across the entire spectrum, in excess of 300 Wikipedia articles. RobinCarmody's assertion that BBC Radio 2 programmes have a larger audience, and therefore are quote:- "more notable" cannot be applied, as something is either notable or it is not. Also he fails to supply any link to verify his comments. This should also apply to his contribution stating that it is quote:- "Highly anoraky stuff, not really something of huge notability in the present day." That is a matter of opinion as opposed to fact, and if that is a fitting criteria for deletion, then again such criteria must be applied across the entire spectrum. It would appear that the proposal for deletion was put forward without the proposer bothering to ascertain whether other Wikipedia articles of a similar genre conform to the reasoning. As someone who has written in the region of 100 articles for Wikipedia, as well as contributed additional information in an attempt to enhance many more (example:- Douglas Harbour or SS Mona's Isle (1830)), I would like to think I understand what does and what does not constitute an acceptable article. The article Carnaby Street (radio programme) fits the criteria for the Category of British music radio programmes, and is therefore notable within that context. It is also notable within the criteria for WikiProject Isle of Man. For the reasons outlined, Keep can be the only fair resolution to the proposal. Harvey Milligan (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2015. (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Weinberg[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, limited media mentions and the article reads like resume puffery. Likely User:ColdSnap465 is the subject or close to the subject. DeleteAllTheThings (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor political spokesperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being a media relations spokesman for a political officeholder does not satisfy WP:NPOL. And he isn't the subject of any of the articles that have been cited as sources, but is merely namechecked as (oddly enough) a media relations spokesman giving quote for the people who are the subjects — which is not the sort of "coverage" that it takes to get a person over WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:49, 17 July 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. Sam Walton (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Better Illinois[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, seems like it was a very limited term PAC that existed only a few months and the page was created and maintained by the two-nonnotable individuals behind it. DeleteAllTheThings (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. Limited life and only very localised coverage. LibStar (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator and LibStar. Not notable per WP:ORG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:48, 24 July 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. Sam Walton (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seperia[edit]

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

Self-promotion. The references are press releases. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There aren't even that many good sources (or sources at all, browser finds company website and this Wiki) in English with the best being this so it's imaginable that any good sources are all Israeli. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not a notable business although I'll admit to doubts that an ordinary SEO/Internet marketing company belongs on Wikipedia. WP:NOTDIRECTORY Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 21 July 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 redirect to Say You Will (album). (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Illume (9–11)[edit]

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

Per WP:NSONGS - notable only as a track on a notable album so should not be the subject of an independent article. Author contests redirection so deletion is the only remaining option. RichardOSmith (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if redirection is not an option. There's nothing there that establishes notability – being about a notable event doesn't make a song notable. Just an album track, like any other on that album. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Say You Will (album). Without any proper sources, there is nothing to merge. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:28, 24 July 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. There were no 'deletes' other than the nominator (who was considering withdrawing the nomination), and only 1 clear 'keep'. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Byon Hee-jae[edit]

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

This article hasn't improved since I posted a PROD notice on it 19 months ago. Korean references are fine if there is at least one citation in English to verify the individual's notability. There is no way to know if any links lead to primary or secondary sources or have anything at all to do with Byon Hee-jae. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering withdrawing this nomination but now that this AfD has been listed in several relevant subject areas, I'm interested to see what other editors think.Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing is a good option. Because there are no delete votes, a withdraw normally leads to a quick non-admin close. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can I ask what the deletion rationale is? Please note that English sources are not a requirement for WP:V or WP:GNG and that non-English sources tend to be treated like inaccessible offline references by those who cannot read the language. The Korean article 변희재 (machine translation) looks quite developed and, in terms of romanisation, there are more English hits for Byun Hee-jae: The Korean Times giving a short overview of his political commentary career and the English version of The Dong-a Ilbo reporting on a defamation ruling about his characterisation of the leader of a former minor political party. Fuebaey (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the entire article is one sentence--Byon Hee-jae (born in April 22, 1974) is a South Korean reporter and journalist, civil rights activist and businessman--that didn't indicate any notability. That is what prompted filing this AfD. If you can improve the article, it would be great to turn it into something more substantial. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BEFORE as this is not a strong enough rationale for WP:AFD. If there are sources that support notability but are not in the article it is still notable. Mrfrobinson (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural delay Until we have someone fluent in Korean review the article. There is no requirement that there be any source in English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep there are plenty of English-language references in ko:변희재. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the commonly used English transliteration of the subject's name is "Byun Hee-jae", and there are plenty of news hits here they describe him as a Conservative/right-wing pundit", and this says "Korea's most annoying personality on the Internet with his trolling for page views" about him. I suppose that's an achievement... Kraxler (talk) 17:24, 24 July 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 redirect to Linus (band). MBisanz ^talk 19:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wimmins' Institute[edit]

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

I see no indication of notability here. Band only formed in 2015. There's one source that's a review of a charity gig that included this band and others, and the rest are just their own Facebook, blog and YouTube. (Speedy A7 was contested.) Mr Potto (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Linus (band). Stuartyeates (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Even the most simple searches found nothing to suggest independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. No strong opinion about a redirect, but since the band members come from two different bands according to the article, I don't know why we would pick one over the other. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:53, 17 July 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) Kraxler (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

100% Hits: The Best of 2006[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Don't be fooled by the links currently used; there is not much coverage in reliable secondary sources, therefore failing WP:GNG. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUMS #3. St Anselm (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certifications alone are not enough to make an album notable; WP:NALBUMS states that there also has to be significantly coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So why does WP:NALBUMS exist? How is it different from WP:GNG? St Anselm (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The requirements of WP:NALBUMS are—in addition to significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources—there must be a confirmed title, track list, and official release date. In other words, it is WP:GNG with certain verified details. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We must be looking at different guidelines. The one I saw set the notability threshhold at gold certification or higher. St Anselm (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NALBUMS if it was certified platinum. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not automatically; the very first sentence of WP:NALBUMS states "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It fails this requirement and therefore fails notability criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep charting album that received platinum certification - satisfies WP:NALBUMS. Dan arndt (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See above; charts alone ARE NOT ENOUGH to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the coverage is significant: charting on national charts and platinum certification, which are verified by reliable and independent sources. Furthermore, "a confirmed title, track list, and official release date" has now been provided.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the references currently used only give brief mentions; not enough coverage. Furthermore, charts and certifications by themselves do not automatically make an album notable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Australian Charts Portal reference is an entire page almost solely on the album. This is hardly a "brief mention": as indicated above it gives confirmed title, track list and official release date. It also provides catalogue numbers, labels and track times.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simoly naming all of an album's song in list form doesn't really count for much. It doesn't really discuss the album compared to things like album reviews, which would be more useful if they could be found. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:52, 20 July 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 redirect to Choriki Sentai Ohranger. MBisanz ^talk 19:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ayumi Hodaka[edit]

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

A minor actress who only appeared in two TV series ([14]) and one film based on one of those shows ([15]). Has long since retired and searches of the web (using both names) find no significant independent RS. Fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or in-depth media coverage to demonstrate basic notability. --DAJF (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Choriki Sentai Ohranger rather than delete and draft/userfy which I would've also supported - I reviewed and tagged the article and noticed & hoped it would improve but my searches found no IMDb or otherwise sources to add. Therefore, the few roles there are, it's unlikely there's much for good independent notability and at best this could be redirected to Choriki (she's listed among the top cast). SwisterTwister talk 21:32, 18 July 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 redirect to Abandon (film). MBisanz ^talk 19:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Burke[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. JaGa^talk 02:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Abandon (film). I received a notification as I initially created this page as the redirect. LAtalent, a WP:SPA, made this into an article. With no evidence of WP:BIO or WP:GNG, I think it should revert to original page. Boleyn (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (not notable)Sattar91 (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sattar91, what is your objection to restoring the unrelated redirect? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to restore the unrelated redirect. But I think the article itself should be deleted due to lack of notability of the person and failure to notability policiesSattar91 (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My sweeps of US news, international, sports-related searches such as this one did not turn up anything to establish WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:55, 23 July 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 as G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement by User:Jackmcbarn. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mast Cells and Neutrophils in Contact Hypersensitivity[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a journal, nor is it the place to publish original research. At best, some information could be merged to our article on mast cells, but as it stands, this article is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Best way forward is simply to delete the article. BurritoSlayer (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyright violation. Copied from a medical journal article, section copied is at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/840541_5. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I've tagged it for speedy deletion per G12. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - Delete. You beat me to it. Adam9007 (talk) 00:01, 18 July 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. There is clearly a consensus to keep the article, but all commentators noted that it needs to be edited to remove the extraneous material which is 'bloating' it, and to ensure that only demonstrably factual information (rather than original research) remains. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Simpson (house servant)[edit]

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

According to this comment on my user talk page, "this is an instance of using Wiki as a platform for a narrow group of scholars to advance original research." This is not what Wikipedia is for. Simpson might be a notable footnote in history, but given that there is just not enough that is clearly and definitively known about her, I'd say that the available published scholarship is not yet to the point where a useful encyclopedia article can be written. At best, a mention of her role in the celebration of Washington's birthday can be made at that article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit/stub down. The current article may contain much original research but the subject is notable and has received significant coverage in books and newspapers. See, e.g. Root and Branch: African Americans in New York and East Jersey, 1613-1863, Sojourner Truth's America, news and news. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, the subject has received much coverage, but as indicated by the present article, the coverage has been contradictory and largely based on hearsay and legend. Historians have not yet settled the issue on the facts of this person, so there is not a single reliable source from which to build. Any encyclopedic article at this point would be a clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS based on the available contradictory sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about a living person, so there are no BLP concerns. Accordingly, the principle of verifiability, not truth applies here. See WP:!TRUTHFINDERS (essay). We do not require a single definitive reliable source for any article. See WP:NPOV. If different reliable sources have conflicting accounts, we should include summaries of those conflicting accounts in proportion to their prevalence in reliable sources, excluding original research and WP:FRINGE accounts, if any. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or -> AfC but must undergo serious editing. This is undoubtedly the most definitive historical study of this woman, but unfortunately it isn't an encyclopedia article. The actual encyclopedic information will be very very small. However, there is (apparently) evidence that she was instrumental in supporting Washington's birthday as a holiday, and she is a verifiable folk figure. Note that the article is solely edited by a single SPA, which means that someone needs to confer with the editor about WP style and policies. I'm surprised that this seems to have come through AfC, and it would have been best if it had been cut down there when there were other editors working with the article's creator. Perhaps it could be sent back to AfC? I would be willing to confer with the editor there. LaMona (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (at best); certainly slim down. This is supposed to be an encycloedia article on a person of slight notability. The presetn article is grossly too long. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 19 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rooster Run[edit]

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

General store fails WP:GNG. Found some blog and travel guide mentions but no significant coverage in WP:RS. Was unsourced since creation in 2006, prod removed with "reference" added but unfortunately the ref is just a link to a song. Vrac (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw and Weak Keep: it's been de-orphaned and I think enough sources have been found to keep; I'm going to edit for NPOV though. Vrac (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. This is typical 2006 Wikipedia work from a retired editor (whom I'll point out has a lengthy record of much better work), so I appreciate User:Vrac catching this orphan. I added the travelogue sources and another significant mention from a crime narrative. Barely meets GNG. BusterD (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've taken the liberty of posting news of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kentucky. As I've said there, this is not to drum up support !votes, but to find citation if the page can be salvaged. BusterD (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just minutes after User:Vrac withdrew this nom, User:Acdixon did a major expansion with multiple RSs. Now the page looks very keepable. Have struck the "weak" from my assertion. Kudos to all involved (especially the nominator) for rescuing this minor landmark from deletion. Now if we could get a nice pic of the hats and the 13' rooster! BusterD (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as an unofficial local landmark with barely enough mentions in references. It's possible more could be found, but most may be offline. The big fiberglass chicken makes the place stand out as well. :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:33, 17 July 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond distribution rights[edit]

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

WP:NOTCRYSTAL surely. This article by a blocked user speculates on something that may or may not happen. Gbawden (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sony had a distribution deal for two James Bond films (Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace) which was subsequently renewed for the next two. After Spectre the distribution deal will either be renewed or it won't. It is not uncommon for distribution to change hands in the case of a long-running film series; we don't really need an article about it (the distribution arrangements for each film can be documented on the film articles) and it is indeed CRYSTAL to speculate whether the rights will be renewed. Betty Logan (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was considering a merge, but now I feel that simple deletion would be preferable. This is essentially just a news item, and Wikipedia isn't the news. There is nothing here that would not be better placed in James Bond in film. The title does not make a plausible search term, so I don't see much value in a redirect. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 14:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 18 July 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. Sandstein 20:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Induction puzzles[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)

Unreferenced page with material that suggests a promotional or advertisement slant. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete it is the only place where I found the Induction puzzle about the King's hats. Deletion is a obliviation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0E:C350:140B:6105:75CF:EC7C:6528 (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see no sign of "promotional or advertisement slant" here, so can you please explain what you mean @TomStar81:? Anyway, puzzles that require the use of induction (that is, a response to the response of other participants rather than just to the initial known facts) are common and the inductive process is key to them, so I'd be surprised if there are no sources out there to indicate notability. Having said that, the article is clearly unsourced at the moment. I'll have a look around to see if I can find anything, but in the meantime I just want to suggest that this does not look like an obvious delete, and certainly not for advertising or promotion. Mr Potto (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Its the way I interpret the examples and solutions sections, they way they read to me is indicative of a how-to guide or a promotion for how to use this method to solve the following puzzles (although in fairness after going through the csd log an admin's brain is usually programmed to see the worst in an article at that point, not the best). As for the 'obvious delete' comment: if it was an obvious delete I'd have axed it on csd grounds during my csd/rc patrol last night; I put it here specifically because I wanted to make sure that the community had a chance to put in their two cents on the article since as I said above when admins go through the csd log they come out per-programmed to see the worst in an article and not the best. Its too early to tell at the moment, but given these preliminary comments I'd be of the mind that subject matter is encyclopedic but the page needs some surgery to correct the underlying flaws - in particular the absence of citations (although I'm sure other tweaks and corrections could be made as well if someone were of the mind to look into it). TomStar81 (Talk) 02:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I see, thanks. I agree it does read like a "How to" guide, and if it's kept then that does need rectifying. (Btw, an article can be an "obvious delete" but still not a speedy delete - if it should obviously be deleted, but not by one of the strict CSD categories.) Mr Potto (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes article is unreferenced but topic is encyclopaedic, fits well in the series on puzzles and was genuinely useful to me today in researching the topic because of a reference to the 'King's Wise Men' puzzle in this article http://www.techradar.com/us/news/world-of-tech/uh-oh-this-robot-just-passed-the-self-awareness-test-1299362. Additionally no sign of promotional content. Mcewan (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I arrived at this article for the exact same reason, viz. recent discussion of AI self awareness, and I found it a useful resource. It would obviously be improved by the addition of references, but deleting it in entirety seems unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.31.221 (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful article with appropriate style and content.Smoobloke (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC) — Smoobloke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but the article could do with more context before plunging into detailed examples. Induction puzzles, in the sense used here, have been turning up regularly, in a bewildering variety of examples, for over 30 years in a wide range of academic publications (see this paper for a recent example) and for at least 20 in puzzle collections. PWilkinson (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I also arrived via the Techradar article, and found the page helpful and interesting, and clearly not meant to advertise. I've cleaned up a couple of the solutions, but haven't added sources. Perhaps with sources, this should be restyled as a list of inductive logic problems? Carleas (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like the other posters here, I arrived at this page when searching for more information on the King's Wise Men puzzle after seeing it in the Techradar article, and it provides a very easy to understand explanation. Links to sources and more related articles would certainly be appreciated, but even as is this page definitely feels worth keeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.157.107 (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As other commentators have mentioned, not only does this article serve as the top search result for the "wise men" logic test and one of the few in-depth explanations in the first page of search results, but I don't think there is any basis to claim that the article is promotional or advertorial in nature, since no specific organization or company is mentioned as a "sponsor" or "creator" of the methods to solve the logic puzzle and there is no incentive (financial, reputational, or otherwise) to choose a particular method to solve a given logic puzzle. If the standard for "promotional or advertorial content" is lowered so that educational content violates this rule, most of the maths/logic/problem-solving articles on Wikipedia would be candidates for deletion since they outline ways of solving problems. If preferred, this article could be merged into another article about logical puzzles, but to delete it outright on "promotional/advertorial grounds" doesn't make any sense. This article isn't perfect by any means and could certainly use work to tidy it up, but it serves an important educational purpose and isn't compromised by pushing support for a particular company and organization.TROPtastic (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I do not feel that this is promotional in nature (although the nominator has explained their reasoning on that issue); however, as has been mentioned, it is one of the few in-depth explanations of the subject. Without reliable sources cited, this would seem to indicate that this is Original Research. The main reason why it is getting hits at the moment is because of the passing mention in TechRadar's article - but this does not indicate that the subject meets the criteria for inclusion. A quick search did not yield indepth coverage of the subject anywhere that is reliable - and most of the "coverage" appears to be referring to puzzle books containing these kinds of puzzles, rather than a discussion about them. Although an interesting subject, that is not a criteria for inclusion... and this article (especially with no citations) does not meet the criteria for inclusion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:05, 27 July 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 no consensus. Even taking into account the limited quality of the keep arguments, there is enough to persuade me that deletion would not be correct. WP:NPASR applies. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Bronin[edit]

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

Delete: Sara does not meet WP:GNG as these are mostly trivial university mentions. Also, I have reason to believe the creator of this page is closely affiliated with the subject at hand. –323MU (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - h-index of 17 should be sufficient to meet WP:ACADEMIC —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her GScholar h-index is 6: [16]. James500 (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, the claim of h-index of 17 is wrong. GS h-index is 6 and WoS h-index is 3 – more comment in my !vote appearing below. Agricola44 (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

strong keep - membership in American Law Institute should satisfy WP:PROF 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. Jafrogg (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

strong keep - member has satisfied three of the criteria WP:ACADEMIC 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE). 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Rin1010 (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Rin1010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~strong keep~~ - subject in question has satisfied criteria by co-creating the Oxonian Review at University of Oxford WP:BIO2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Rin1010 (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - user Rin1010 is a sockpuppet of Jafrogg and IP address 67.221.75.52. This is a clear manipulation of Wikipedia rules and this article should be deleted. Sara is simply not notable. Sorry, fails WP:ACADEMIC –323MU (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - not a sockpuppet account. Probably another individual working at the same large institution. Rin1010 (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @323MU: is not an admin, and should not be posting block notices or sockpuppet notices on user's pages. All users should ignore the erroneously posted messages. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

agree on procedure, but these accounts have strong signs of being meat puppets. Agricola44 (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

- Comment. I struck out the second "strong keep" from Rin1010. @Rin1010: Please only leave a single "keep" or "delete" comment in AfDs. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on possible meat puppet activity several "keeps" above are new single-purpose accounts and have been tagged. Agricola44 (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NACADEMIC, specifically #2 and #3- for the reasons above. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quick inspection indicates a very problematic article: (1) created by a now-blocked SPA at same institution and heavily edited since then by anon IPs from same institution – WP:COI often clouds judgement of notability, (2) sources are almost entirely web ephemera or non-published documents (e.g. from her institution) – the only WP:RS seems to be her wedding announcement in NYT, (3) comments above vastly overstate the WP:PROF c3 aspects e.g. while ALI does seem to limit their number of members, it seems to be a dues-paying, membership-based working professional organization, with new members being nominated by already-members (like a country club) and I don't see that Bronin is a fellow or some such of this organization (note that the above comparison to NAS is way out of context), (4) the case for WP:PROF c1 is also vastly overstated above – Bronin only has a few articles in mainstream law reviews and WoS shows citations of 11, 10, and 3 (h-index 3). All-in-all Dr. Bronin's accomplishments are in-line with a fairly young-in-career scholar. This might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Low h-index and a clutch of very minor architectural awards don't add up to a pass of WP:PROF to me, despite holding a full professorship at a good university. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Her h index is not particularly low. Law is a very low citation field. London School of Economics says the average h index of a (full) law professor is 2.8, which is less than half what GScholar has for her. I don't see a h index of 6 as a grounds for deletion. Prima facie it is much better than average. James500 (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand my argument about low h-indexes. Having a low h-index is not itself grounds for deletion. But it is a lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF#C1. These numbers are so small that even having double the average is not "much better than average" and is not evidence of anything much. We need positive evidence of notability to keep the article, and the low citation count shuts off one avenue for this. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not support (WP:PROF). Low hindex. Considering that Sara Bronin has been heavily edited by IPs from the same location at the University of Connecticut, it does not warrant inclusion in the English Wikipedia. Wiki92man (^Talk/_Stalk) 09:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I am less sure about whether her academic credentials mean she passes or doesn't pass WP:PROF, since I am not an academic, I do see sources indicating she's a mover and shaker, particularly in Connecticut, notable with sources such as this in-depth write up. She lives in and has helped restore a historic house which "won top honors in AIA Connecticut's Alice Washburn Awards for traditional Connecticut residential architecture". She is a major player in whether the city of Hartford -- a large-sized city in Connecticut and the state's capital, gets a baseball stadium. Her photo is in CTNow. Her article on the subject of solar rights was cited by 58. She is quoted as an authority regarding energy policy and law. Essentially she straddles different worlds -- law, architecture, academia, public policy, energy, historic conservation, plus her husband might run for mayor, with enough references in my view to meet the WP:GNG, although the current article needs some work.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The "Spotlight on Sara Bronin" does focus on her, but it is a blog. Most of what you cited are about community issues covered in local news outlets (e.g. the "CTNow" piece) and/or have only a few quotes from her. I don't think anyone here has argued that Bronin is not well-known in her community and I doubt that you are really arguing that factors like whether her husband has a future run for mayor are relevant – such things are simply not the crux of WP notability. Agricola44 (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Reply. It is not simply that she is "well known in her community" but is clearly a force in Hartford with the historical preservation and zoning issues. But overall, it is many things -- being a Rhodes scholar, her research into a relatively new area, energy sprawl, with her articles such as this one, her book on Historic Preservation Law, she is profiled in the Hartford Business Journal, she is a major factor in whether Hartford gets a baseball stadium, (read the article -- not just a few quotes but it talks extensively about her, meeting the in-depth requirement). Her home restoration is extensively profiled in a Connecticut magazine (one can 'click' through to see it). In any one area, such as architecture, or law, or scholarship, maybe she's light, but the sum total of her accomplishments, in my view, puts her into the WP:GNG category.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get your argument: many factors that do not, by themselves, indicate notability, but nevertheless add-up to a collective body that does indicate notability. My trouble is that most of those factors are either of a local nature (whether Hartford gets a BBall team), or are clearly outside the purview of notability. For example, you just cited an article of hers on SSRN, which is an unrefereed pre-print server (no weight towards notability). I think the honest assessment is that this person is very visible in her community (as evidenced by a number of pieces in local news publications) and has an academic impact on par with "the average professor". Best, Agricola44 (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Fair enough, we'll just have to agree to disagree; while some people may think Hartford is just a "local town" or "community", it is the state capitol with a metro population of over a million; that she is an important force there, for me, suggests she is notable. In addition, she is profiled here. Plus her marriage was reported in the New York Times here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Another thing: there are instances when she uses all of her different disciplines in one project, such as being the lead attorney for a vast development project in Hartford, developing buildings with renewable energy built in; here, she writes about her project as a legal case study. Plus she has a considerable publishing history since 2008 with over 200+ citations as shown here. What I'm saying about the straddling of disciplines -- this handyman thinks it is cool.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the additional points you've now raised, FWIW, 200+ GS citations (h-index = 6) is unremarkable. So are the spotlight article from her school graduation and her Vanderbilt Law Review article that has been cited 3 whole times. As I said above, her NYT marriage announcement is the only real WP:RS. I'm not a handyman, but I think she's cool too – just not notable according to our rules. Agricola44 (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I disagree. Clearly notable, overall, taking into account everything. We'll just have to agree to disagree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you still think that the universe of factors you've cited, each one of which has been shown to be non-notable on its own, somehow magically create a notable collective, then, yes, we'll just have to disagree. Agricola44 (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Fails on reliable sources relating to her law career: #'s 1, 7-22, 26, 30 are not third-party. Others have commented on her academic standing, and I concur that there doesn't seem to be enough there for wp:academics. There is a mention of her in 22, 25, 28, 29, with some proof that she sits on a local planning board. #31 and #32 are that she married and her husband might run for mayor - no notability for her there. #s 2-5 are about a local architectural society award for having renovated her home - nice, but probably not enough for architectural notability alone. LaMona (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - Two "strong keep"s here appear to be accounts that were created on the date of the speedy tag or shortly after this AfD was issued, and both have edited only the page in question as well as !voting here: Special:Contributions/Jafrogg, and Special:Contributions/Rin1010. This could be evidence of wp:sock or coordinated editing. This is also mentioned above, but I noticed it as well, and think it is potentially a direct violation of WP policies on editing and accounts. LaMona (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:- I believe notability in this case needs to be based on the region/counties where the subject of the article resides or based and the available media there. What is important is the reliability of the sources and verifiability. She doesn't have to be covered in the "New York Times" and "India Times" to be considered notable. In addition, been a past President of the Connecticut Hispanic Bar Association and elected member of American Law Institute adds to her notability only that both are not enough to pass WP:ACADEMIC #2 and #3. WP:COI is not a ground for deletion either, it only means that the page creator and any possible socks associated with them are not familiar with our policies and guideline and the best way of handling them is to keep them aware and notify them of possible violations. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of your reasons for "keep" have already been refuted above, for example "local fame" is not notable and the American Law Institute is a working professional organization, not an honorary like NAS. Agricola44 (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I have no idea of why you directed such a non sequitur comment to me because I had not in anyway compare American Law Institute to National Academy of Science and nobody insinuated that they are the same. I only said that been a past President of the Connecticut Hispanic Bar Association and elected member of American Law Institute adds to her notability only that both are not enough to pass WP:ACADEMIC #2 and #3. You may want to point us to where the notability guideline said that sources in ones region/counties are insufficient to establish notability, where the same guideline emphasized that sources in one's own region/counties are unreliable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it was insinuated above that ALI was comparable to NAS (you may want to read previous comments, especially noting that ALI is a dues-paying professional organization and that membership does not add to notability). As to your second part, we simply don't weigh "local fame" (local/neighborhood newspapers, local/state organizations, etc) very heavily toward notability, otherwise a large fraction of the world's population would be "notable" in some way. Consequently, I think the burden is really on the proponents to justify why we should make an exception in this case and I don't see that such arguments have been convincing yet. Sorry. Agricola44 (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. Bronin in my view meets the WP:ACADEMIC #7 and #8. Here is the guideline:

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.

Regarding point #8, she founded the Oxonian Review of Books and was senior editor of the Yale Law & Policy Review and more recently managing editor of the The Next American City magazine (note: search using her maiden name, Sara Galvan).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxonian Review is a student-run webzine and does not count as "a major well-established academic journal" (PROF c8). Yale Law Review is likewise a student-run publication and NAC is a webzine that she was managing editor of while she was a student (per your link). I think again that, while these are all very interesting, they do not clear the bar of notability that has been established over many years of AfD. Agricola44 (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Oxonian Review is associated with Oxford University, one of Britain's two premier universities. Ditto, Yale Law & Policy Review with Yale University, a highly prestigious American university. Bronin's credentials are impressive by any measure. In the legal world, the Yale Law & Policy Review has tremendous cache in the legal world, with past contributors including Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and Clarence Thomas; Vice President Al Gore; Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and Cyrus Vance; Senators Bill Frist, Ted Kennedy, Joe Lieberman, and Arlen Specter; Ambassador John Negroponte; and Professors Richard Epstein, Harold Koh, Robert Post, and Cass Sunstein. Bronin was an editor with this prestigious publication. Seems clearly to meet requirements for the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly a notable group of alumni, but the salient point remains that these are student-run publications and that the editors are "student editors". I'm going to try to sign-off now before you continue WP:NOTGETTINGIT in upper case. Thanks. Agricola44 (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
The fact that Yale Law & Policy Review is edited by students may be irrelevant as that is normal for American law reviews, even the most prestigious. Unless I am mistaken, the articles in the journals are written by people with credentials. The section "notable articles", for example, cites an article by Richard Neely in 1984, who was, according to our article on him, at the time a judge of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, not a student. The fact that the Oxonian Review is run by students will be relevant as that is not normal for European reviews. James500 (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:James500 is certainly correct about American law reviews; students edit them, professors compete to get articles in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point is the fact that "making" it onto law review is like "making" a starting varsity team, a status awarded for significant academic achievement. Making law review is something that stays on a resume for a lifetime, like clerking for an Appellate or Supreme Court Justice. That said, it is not what is intended by criterion #8. Editing a major academic journal is an honor awarded to a mid or late career academic in recognition of substantive and significant scholarly contributions. Editing law review does not get you automatically past WP:PROFESSOR under rule #8.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then criteria 8 should be rewritten so that it says what it was intended to mean instead of saying something quite different. James500 (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It reads: 8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area." But it is brought of proof as an academic. If a law school editor opts for a career as as a lawyer, the student editorship does not establish notability. Bunin would have to be asked to edit a journal as part of her post-student career to meet #8.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep She isn't notable in any one category, or for any one thing, but the sources show notability for an interesting carer blending law, architecture and historic preservation, and similarly straddling community activism, scholarship and private practice. Cumulatively, I think she passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your reasoning is exactly the same as Tomwsulcer's above: numerous factors, each one of which is non-notable on its own, somehow magically create a notable collective. This is WP:ILIKEIT based on the opinion that Bronin is "interesting". Agricola44 (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

No, it is WP:GNG, based on the fact that my search instantly and easily turned up multiple articles in reliable places like the Hartford Courant. These were articles represented "significant coverage", not trivial mentions, although none of the ones I read was a full-length profile in Vanity Fair. Still, Connecticut Magazine [17] is notable enough; I keep a copy on a table in the window of my family’s Civil War-era brownstone overlooking Bushnell Park - (I only wish!) The articles I refer to were substantive coverage of her work in historic preservation. Moreover, the facts on her childhood, education, and career are reliably sourced, even though those sources are mostly either passing mentions or do not count towards notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG rule is as follows (I bolded one phrase for emphasis):

People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability....

And that is my argument in this case, that in any one area such as academics, she is not notable, but overall, combining her numerous accomplishments, she is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agricola44 (talk · contribs) is not just getting it and I wonder why. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable award-winning academic with good coverage. I agree especially with the WP:GNG quote above. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:53, 27 July 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 Glossary of cricket terms. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biffer[edit]

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

This deletion nomination covers two related cricket articles:

These are essentially dictionary definitions of a slang term which can be readily handled in Glossary of cricket terms. The articles are padded out by an unreferenced list of players who fit the definition, but this is not satisfactorily encyclopedic in nature for retention. Only a handful of article-space pages use either link. Aspirex (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Glossary of cricket terms per nom. No sense keeping these WP:DICDEFs when there's an obvious place for them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. "Biffer" is also vulgar British slang for "unattractive woman", but I can't think of a suitable article for that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge obviously; we have glossary articles for a reason. We don't need to care that one of them can also be a slang term, unless it's an encyclopedic topic and is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that term; even then it's just a WP:DAB matter, and the cricket content belongs in the cricket glossary. It's highly unlikely anyway (see deletion history of Butterface, a comparable American slang term much closer to WP:N than "biffer" as slang. PS: Glossary of cricket terms needs some minor cleanup; e.g., it shouldn't be capitalizing the first letter of terms in usual Wikipedia list style, since it makes it impossible to distinguish proper names from regular words. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source, its definition of the slang biffer made me chuckle. I would be astonished if Viz had not used the term at some point. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:38, 20 July 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. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

T-commerce[edit]

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

~~No citations and un-notable neologism Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 09:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)~~ I withdraw the nomination per Kku Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 09:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC) According to your subtitle, you've made a huge mess. I am not in a position to judge that. But you have certainly acted a little rash and unreflected in this case, it appears. Care to reconsider? -- Kku 10:44, 17 July 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic-Baltic Network for Benthic Algae in Freshwater[edit]

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

Standard searches did not reveal enough significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the company. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing the coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 21 July 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss United Continent[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy delete Non-notable pageant, operating only 2 years and without a depth of coverage to meet WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 05:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is a recreation of an article previously ~~deleted~~ discussed by AfD. Flat Out (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator is mistaken in claiming that the article was previously deleted (see prior AFD, closed as no consensus), so as it is not a recreation, speedy deletion is not available. However, the nominator does advance a deletion argument in claiming that the subject is not notable, so a discussion may proceed to evaluate that claim. postdlf (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT& GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sourcing, fails WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG. The Banner talk 10:26, 17 July 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 19:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian McTernan[edit]

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

NN record producer and amateur/semi-pro musician failing WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Some of the bands he's been in are notable and there is a possibility that his record studio might be notable, but he shows no evidence as an individual.

The "most influential people in Maryland" award he won in 2009 is one of 8 annual awards that the Maryland Daily Record, a NN local trade paper, gives "honoring" hundreds each year. Certainly nowhere near passing GNG. The Dissident Aggressor 06:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and, of all the bands, I'm not seeing a good move target, and my searches found nothing particularly good and more suggesting local notability (rather than universal) here (Wiki mirror), here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 17 July 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. Nobody should kill this page either

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentors International[edit]

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

I'm not seeing much notability and there doesn't even seem to be much to suggest good local notability. My searches here, here, here and here nothing particularly oustanding. I actually prepared taking this to AfD a month or two ago so both times I found no significant coverage. In any case, this could be moved to Menlo F. Smith (either by redirect or selective merge). SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Care to comment? SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this may be notable within the Mormon Church but not on a wider scale, and there aren't the references to meet WP:CORP yet. Merge as suggested would be my !vote. Linkle KMF (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, and I wouldn't redirect because I think the person is just as non-notable as the organization. The two articles were started simultaneously. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 17 July 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 19:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alafe[edit]

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

Not a notable festival in my opinion, especially given that it apparently is only celebrated in some areas of one city in Iran. It could potentially be a candidate for merging into Semnan, Iran, however I personally don't think it's worth inclusion there either. (Note - article sources are in Persian) | Naypta^talk opened his mouth at 18:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The New Year's celebrations of Nowrooz have various traditions. For this region they would best be covered in the Semnan article at this point and I would redirect there. I can't find sourcing to support what's in this article unfortunately.. yet. NotAnOmbudsman (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the article "the people call it the underworld Alafe", it almost seems to be a non-English slang term.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:52, 22 July 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. Deleted as per author request by an admin (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 07:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Riyadh car bombing[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Unlikely to have continued coverage that warrants a separate article. Recommend redirecting to Terrorism_in_Saudi_Arabia#2015. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 07:07, 17 July 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 no consensus. Sandstein 20:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mahbuba Islam Rakhi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as the sources are not reliable and significant. Winning in a beauty contest does not make her notable. Arr4 (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Multiple independent in depth news articles, Acted in TV Shows, Commercials, Music Video Model, TV show host on National TV. I am adding some reliable sources.. Article has enormous room for improvement but subject is easily Notable. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Constructive edits are always welcomed. Please improve the article with RS as much as you can. - Arr4 (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft/userfy I suppose if wished but my searches found nothing so it's possible sole coverage is in Bangladesh (no IMDb either). Some of the current sources are from good news sources while others are not solid. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, as the article is well sourced for an actress. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject appears to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 15:14, 18 July 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. If someone wants the history/content restored to facilitate a merge, I would be happy to oblige. kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Webbs Mills Fire Department[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Southport, New York. It's sad that this was kept only because its copyvio was fixed. This appears to be a run of the mill (pardon the pun) fire department for a very small, rural Upstate New York community. Nonetheless, it could add heft to the other article, pointing out that the hamlet of Webbs Mills, New York is so small and non-notable as not to even rate its own article. I'll be bold and create a redirect for Webbs Mills. Bearian (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I messaged Malik_Shabazz for permission to re-create this redirect. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic passes the WP:GNG, being discussed in detail in sources such as Chemung County, 1890-1975 and Chemung County, its history. Andrew D. (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search of the book mentioned by the !keeper turned out two mentions of "fire" [18], neither of which discuss the fire department. Searches for news reports or other notable web mentions turned up nothing.96.52.0.249 (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The claims of the IP editor are false. The search link returns 93 different pages and these clearly discuss the topic in detail. For example, on page 186 we find "The first fire truck was a 1916 Reo and was kept in the old Miles Cassada building in Webbs Mills..." Andrew D. (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - non noatable fire department, no indepth coverage —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is in-depth coverage, as demonstrated above, and it is easy to find more such as the Chemung County County-Wide Fire Services Study Andrew D. (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not in depth coverage... This is a brief mention in a report about all fire departments in the region. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- not every workplace merits its own article, and the coverage seems to be mostly trivial or run-of-the-mill fluff. Reyk _YO! 12:01, 24 July 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 no consensus. Insufficient input despite being listed for 4 weeks, and no agreement between those who have contributed. Michig (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerade[edit]

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

I came to this page doing citation improvement on random articles from the category for articles needing citation. I could not find sufficient sources for this product (e.g. reviews). It looks not-especially-noteable and also promotional. Vordrak (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Vordrak (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete - It'd be nice if things like this got at least decent coverage but my searches found nothing outstandingly significant here and here, here and here (the last one is mostly company press releases) and apparently it's the only sports drink with the patented 4:1 ratio of carbs to protein. It seems it was bought by Cadbury Schweppes (aka Dr. Pepper Group) in 2006 here and some of the News links mention this in passing and Accelerade has sponsored several events and people but I'm not sure if there's much here. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Runner's World article, despite its informality, seems a RS review; I think it's enough to show it a major product in its niche. thee are presumably others, but they are hard to sort out from the miscellaneous blog postings--this needs attention from someone who knows the subject. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 17 July 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Mitchell (Scottish entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. The one source cited cannot be verified (broken link) but would apparently only establish that the subject won a Territorial Decoration, a military medal for 20 years of service that would not be sufficient to establish notability under WP:SOLDIER. Googling and searches at newspapers.com turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's in Who Was Who[19] but I'm not sure if that's enough to show notability. I don't think he's notable as a soldier. But Luscar Coal is still going and has some online coverage, so maybe his business interests can be covered somewhere. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. The entries are basically self-published. Msnicki (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be a member of a notable family but lacks WP:SIGCOV for himself. EricSerge (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Who's Who is significant coverage. How many times do you need to be told this? Every bloody time it seems, and we need to explain to Americans what Who's Who is and that it's really not a scam. Also, Times obituary, please pay attention. And meets WP:SOLDIER for service leading a battalion in wartime service. Le petit fromage (talk) 06:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who is not a reliable source for establishing notability. From http://www.print.ukwhoswho.com/more_whoswho, Each biographee supplies the original information for their entry and is then sent an annual proof for updating. Our editors also monitor the press and other sources of reference for day-to-day changes and additions. The information contained in a Who’s Who entry is essentially autobiographical, its integrity and accuracy ensured by constant independent research. Also, you're wrong, the subject does not meet WP:SOLDIER. He did not command a battalion in wartime service. He led a regiment. WP:SOLDIER presumes notability for anyone who commanded a "substantial body of troops in combat" where a substantial body is defined as division or larger. A division is several regiments. Msnicki (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent says you are wrong. Also, Times obituary (that's The Times, not the New York-imposter Times). Le petit fromage (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you say. But that certainly isn't the precedent I've observed in AfDs. Can you point to a discussion at WP:RSN where there was a consensus that Who's Who can be used to establish notability? (I'm pretty darn sure you can't.) As for the Times obituary, did you try clicking the link? It's broken. I searched newspapers.com and could not find it. It's impossible to know if the obituary even exists, much less what it said. There's no possible way we can write an article based on a vanity listing in Who's Who and an obituary that may not exist. Msnicki (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you: Who's Who is categorically not a "vanity listing". Le petit fromage (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I've answered. Cite a discussion at WP:RSN or can it. As for the "don't be stupid" edit remark on your claim, let me it put it this way: I think you're full of it. Msnicki (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A few things relevant to the disagreement above. (a) The British Who's Who is certainly not self-published in any way; people are invited to be in it. Yes, they write their own bios, but these are verified, it's not a vanity club and they don't pay to be in it. Being selected for inclusion is good evidence that the individual is significant in British public life. However, it is generally considered at AfD that while it is a good start as to indication of notability, additional proof is generally needed, as particularly in earlier editions people were often included just because they were members of the landed gentry (who were, of course, considered to be notable at the time, but not so much now). (b) He commanded a cavalry regiment, which is indeed the equivalent of an infantry battalion in the British Army (the British equivalent of a non-British regiment is a brigade). Command of a battalion or regiment is, however, not sufficient to prove notability. (c) An obit in The Times is certainly proof of notability - this has always been held to be the case at AfD. However, Mitchell only got a brief notification of death, not a full obituary, which makes him borderline at the most. (d) Please take note that a source doesn't have to be visible on the internet for it to be valid. Print-only sources are entirely acceptable and nobody should be suggesting that because they're not immediately visible to everybody they're somehow invalid. The Times archives are actually available online, but only as a subscription service, although this is available for free through most British university and public libraries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't accept Who's Who as evidence of notability even if it is the UK Who's Who. They clearly state that the entries are written by the subjects, making them clearly WP:PRIMARY, even if they are reliable. And it's not clear they are reliable. They claim "integrity and accuracy ensured by constant independent research" but the only research they seem to promise is that they "monitor the press and other sources of reference for day-to-day changes and additions". But we didn't find anything in the press or other sources and I doubt they did, either. So what they published was likely written in entirety by the subject and probably received zero independent fact-checking to see whatever the subject claimed could be supported by other sources. You might not call that a vanity listing, but I do.

Re: the obit in the Times, since you claim to know how to find these things, did you do that? Of course print sources count and not all sources have to be online. But it does have to exist. I searched at newspapers.com, which has archives of the Times covering that period and nothing turned up. I could not find it. I am not convinced this source exists. I am certainly not ready to agree that an obit that defies attempts to find it and may not even exist is sufficient to establish notability. If you can find it and summarize it, I will, of course, accept your word. Msnicki (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you accept isn't really relevant, since Who's Who is generally regarded as a reliable source by most people with any knowledge of British biography and citations from it have always been regarded as reliable on Wikipedia. In fact, it's the standard reference work on British biography for those who are still alive (and for most of those who are dead, since the Dictionary of National Biography, which does provide automatic notability, is far, far more selective than Wikipedia). In any case, we're talking about notability here. Since the subjects don't put themselves forwards for Who's Who, how is the manner in which the entries are written any indicator as to their notability? The fact they've been selected in itself indicates a level of notability. Re The Times, yes, clearly I did find it, given I said it was "a brief notification of death, not a full obituary". I think most people would agree that the official Times Digital Archive might be a little more reliable than newspapers.com (and I think the implication that if it's not findable on that website then it obviously doesn't exist is a little odd)! If you want chapter and verse, the notice of Mitchell's death (actually more concerned with the value of his estate, since he died four months before) appeared on Saturday 2 March 1935, p.4, at the top of column 6! There was a very brief announcement of his death (with no real details except his name) on the day after his death itself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's been asserted that an entry in the British Who's Who is commonly accepted as evidence of notability at AfD. I don't think that's true and asked if there was a consensus to support that claim at WP:RSN. No one's volunteered a pointer to any relevant discussion, so I decided to ask the question myself, here. Msnicki (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks sufficient sources to write a sensible article. The sources that do exist are not significant coverage. Clearly not notable, failing GNG.--ℕ ℱ 17:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. An ordinary rich man. No multiple coverage cited to extablish anything outstanding about him. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete Who was Who for me provides a presumption of notability (I suspect only those unfamiliar with the UK volumes would doubt that) though their selection criteria are too snobbish for my liking. The people included are independently selected, unlike, I understand, the similarly-named US books. However, there seems to be too little referenced material for even a brief biography and it is clear that the article originated from genealogical material which may well never have been published. I think too little content is verifiable though I have added references to WwW. If there is a decent source for his career then I reverse my !vote. Thincat (talk) 17:05, 19 July 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. The consensus is that this actor is not currently meeting the criteria for notability. If the author of the article would like this userfied, contact myself or another admin. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amaan Reza[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. References are not reliable at all. - Arr4 (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Arr4 (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - New Age is a Reliable source, Published English Language newspaper in Bangladesh and one of the oldest English language newspaper. Notability on the other hand is uncertain but does not appear notable. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- NewAge is reliable but such kind of WP:INTERVIEW of the subject does not establish notability. - Arr4 (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and I suppose draft/userfy if it helps the user but some of this can be started; my searches overall found nothing outstanding aside from various links here. IMDb only lists a few of his films and although there's more content here at Wiki, I think we can wait until he's achieved more coverage and notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As in the spirit of the criteria for an WP:ENTERTAINER, he has acted in major roles for atleast:
1. Shongram [Struggle] (google)
2. Probashir Prem [Expatriate's Romance] (ref, a very short article but he is listed)
3. Shotorupe Shotobar [Hundred Forms A Hundred Times]

Here are some reference news articles. I've selected the following articles from the bigger news sites:

"বাংলাদেশের ছবিতে বাপ্পি লাহিড়ী" [Bappi Lahiri in a Bangladeshi film]. Prothom Alo (in Bengali). February 7, 2015. Retrieved July 6, 2015. Google translation. The article says the music of Shotorupe Shotobar will be directed by Bappi Lahiri and lists Amaan as a star. Google mistranslates "Shotorupe Shotobar" as "Satarupe photo hundred times."
Rahat Saiful (June 11, 2015). "ব্রিটিশ শিল্পীদের সঙ্গে আমান" [British actresses with Amaan]. risingbd.com (in Bengali). Retrieved July 6, 2015. Google translation.
Ahmed Zaman Shimul (June 17, 2015). "কার্গোর বিজ্ঞাপনে আমান রেজা" [Amaan Reza in a cargo advertisement]. dhallywood24.com (in Bengali). Retrieved July 6, 2015. Google translation. Amaan Reza acting in a commercial whilst still shooting for Shotorupe Shotobar.

His name in Bangla was actually miswritten in the article as আমন রেজা instead of the correct আমান রেজা too, but only after finding the mistake have I found articles about him! Please also note that this is in addition to the four references already present in the main article. Thank you for consideration. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 09:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to notify you but @Vinegarymass911: @SwisterTwister: what do you think? I've provided translation links for you to read. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 07:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the amount of sources does'nt swing me to a full keep and if any it'd be weak keep. It still looks he hasn't had many movies. SwisterTwister talk 14:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Although he acted in 29 films (12 released as of November 2014) according to [20]. It's a bit hard to find more articles on his past work but it seems that he has only been given media attention after Shotorupe Shotobar. Besides, I don't think the nominator would feel too strongly about this after these 3 non-interview style references I've found. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 18:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still not enough citation, not all films are notable, of the four references present 2 are the same, and the other two are from an unreliable source and one of them is a Photo gallery. Prothom alo's article is more focused on Bappi Lahri. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But he had a lead role in Shongram as well as being the subject of some of the articles I listed... Some of the references might not subject him directly but that doesn't disqualify him does it; seeing that other references do put him in the spotlight. The entertainer policy (link) also says that an actor should have some following and seeing his facebook page ([21]) he does have 4500+ followers. Well, it's a metric. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 06:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:NACTOR as he has had significant roles in multiple notable films with coverage in independent, reliable sources. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you, as the author of the article, think it should be kept. Can you identify for us which of the films he's been in are notable ones in which he has had a significant role? Worldbruce (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. Of the cited sources:

The two New Age pieces are short puff-ball primary source interviews with "What's your favorite color"-type questions. They don't count towards notability.
If Bangladeshi Entertainers is a reliable source, the two pieces from it, by the same author, count as one source.
The Prothom Alo and Dhaka Tribune articles only mention the subject in passing.

Of the additional sources found by Nahiyan8:

The Prothom Alo piece is the same one cited in the article.
The risingbd blurb isn't quite as trivial, but only says Reza is shooting a new movie in London and hopes it will be good.
dhallywood24 covers the same ground as risingbd, adding only that the role is as a police officer and Reza is also shooting a TV commercial.

His role in Shongram was significant, and that film was notable, but I don't see evidence of multiple significant roles in notable films yet. Neither WP:BASIC nor WP:ACTOR has been met, so this article is WP:TOOSOON. The best result would be userfy to Tanbircdq (the original author) on the assumption that as more of Reza's films are released he will receive sufficient coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources and thereby meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria at some future date. Without support for userfy, I have to recommend delete. Worldbruce (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources independent, reliable & article fulfills ENT. 178.17.70.1 (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fulfills WP:ENT in what way? Worldbruce (talk) 17:21, 23 July 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mita Mahesh Gowande[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGOLF. Furthermore, many of the references currently on the page do not even mention her. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First female professional golfer from Maharashtra, one among a few from India. All citations do mention either her or her achievements (tournaments in which she participated) but some have got her name wrong and mentioned her with name "Gavande" or "Gawande". Mr RD (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it should be disclosed here that Mr RD has indicated that he has been monetarily compensated to create and edit this article. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Shouldn't a page be judged for its merit rather than who created it? Mr RD (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, but the conflict of interest guideline states that an editor who has a COI should declare so on the talk page of the article and "during any discussion about the affected topic." Inks.LWC (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has done nothing notable at the amateur or professional level. All references are WP:ROUTINE. Tewapack (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tewapack....William 11:32, 21 July 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 redirect to Defy Media. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clevver news[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no sources Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Defy Media, the company that runs this operation. The YouTube channel itself is non-notable and does not meet WP:ORG. I found a lot of hits on Google, but they were all along the lines of "as So-and-so told Clevver News,..." which does not constitute significant coverage. Altamel (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Defy Media, where the subject is already mentioned, per Altamel. I was also not able to find the level of in-depth coverage needed to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:WEB for this YouTube channel. Mz7 (talk) 05:26, 24 July 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. Michig (talk) 07:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Blazevich[edit]

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

Subject is non-notable college athlete. Doesn't meet any criteria of WP:NCOLLATH. Only references provided are to bio pages. GLG GLG (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was only able to find sources directly connected with the college; fails WP:GNG and no evidence of any major awards or the like to pass WP:NCOLLATH. ~ Rob^Talk 19:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete found only passing mentions in four articles in the Toledo Blade. Subject may achieve notability in the future, so I would not object to userfy if someone were enthusiastic and wished to take custody of the content and history.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:59, 21 July 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. Deleted under G3 as an obvious hoax. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Nuttall[edit]

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

Potentially non-notable doctor. I dream of horses (T) @ 02:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 02:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 02:30, 17 July 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 deleted by User:Jimfbleak. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Project Pokemon Roblox[edit]

Not a notable ROBLOX game. WikiMan AKA WikiMan20152014 (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)WikiMan20152014[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tour of Faroe Islands[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. whilst an annual race, it's amateur and ~~none~~only one of the place getters in its history are notable. LibStar (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed to one of the place getters being notable but he seems more notable for sailing. LibStar (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the most important cycling race in the Faroe Islands. Is the English Wikipedia only for English speaking countries? The Faroese media cover this event, but they don't write about "Tour of Faroe Islands", they write about "Kring Føroyar", which is the Faroese name of the event. The current name is "Volvo Kring Føroyar" for sponsor reasons. The latest vinner, Torkil Veyhe, is Faroese but is living in Denmark, where he is a professional cyclist. A few days ago he won a gold medal at the 2015 Island Games in the men's individual time trial.islandgamesresults.com - Men's Individual Time Trial EileenSanda (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

would Torkil Veyhe qualify for notability under Wikipedia:ATH#Cycling? LibStar (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

like anything in Wikipedia it needs significant coverage (in any language). This one doesn't get that coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I search on google for "Kring Føroyar" I get 5840 results. EileenSanda (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

refer WP:GOOGLEHITS. LibStar (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant since it does not appear that WP:BEFORE was followed, cf. my recent addition of 25 references. Is this yet another case of nom not speaking or understanding the source language? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a lot of supplied sources are not in-depth, for example merely confirming what date the race is on doesn't establish notability nor reporting who won.LibStar (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From nom's lack of reply to my question I presume this is another case where they do not understand the source language. That and the fact that nom's reply above comes 7 minutes after my question does not suggest they have read, translated and understood many if any of the 25 added references. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at some of them for example at least 2 merely confirmed what date it was held. A few others confirmed placegetters. I will look at them all in the coming few days. There is no rule in Wikipedia where someone can't nominate articles based on a foreign language despite what you persistently think. Regards LibStar (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I neither thought so nor did I say so. Stick to the facts, can you? I notice that you stated above that "a lot of supplied sources are not in-depth" and now specify that as "at least 2". Thanks for confirming what I assumed: you haven't looked at the sources to an extent that gives you any ability to judge notability. This you should have done WP:BEFORE considering nomination. And in common with your likewise drive-by tagging of Super16 (film school) and your failed nomination, you do not appear to speak the source language here. I suggest you withdraw the nomination. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will not simply withdraw the nomination simply because you are becoming aggressive and pushy and obvious can't get over the super 16 article. Suggest you WP:CHILL LibStar (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again try to stick to the subject rather than what you imagine ("you persistently think") or what your feel ("becoming aggressive and pushy"): you have again nominated an article where you do not speak the source language and where you have not done your homework. It's a waste of community time. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as I said increasingly pushy and there is also no rule prohibiting nominations of articles based on a foreign language despite what you wrongly and persistently think. LibStar (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in fact let's wait for a response asking for withdrawal of nomination or recycling the foreign language argument. Yawn. LibStar (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also see this related previous AfD. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a bunch of references and there's plenty of sources to meet GNG. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

while it looks like a lot of sources references 7 to 29 merely confirm winners and place getters, rather than in-depth coverage of the race. If these winners were notable riders that would add to notability but none of them are. LibStar (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. You need to read a lot better on the sources. And the notability of individual riders has nothing to do with the notability of the event. INHERITED springs to mind. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited a lot of sporting event articles and I would think all of them have notable participants. LibStar (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources this one and this looks like primary sources by event organisers or Faroese sporting site/cycling club and also is WP:ROUTINE as it just confirms event details. this one merely confirms event details. 27 and 28 merely confirm the event was cancelled, so I can't see how that increases notability of the event. As previously stated, most of the coverage from 7-31 merely confirms non notable place getters. LibStar (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hafsteinn Geirsson seem like a notable person, if that should matter so much in order to keep this article. The article about him only mentions his career as a sailor, he has attended the Olympics. But I also find Icelandic sources which claim that he is one of Icelands best cyclists. By looking at photos of the sailor and the cyclist it looks as it is the same person.[22]. In the Faroes all the winners of this tour are considered notable sports persons. I am not so familiar with Icelandic, but the references I find about Hafsteinn indicate that he is notable in Iceland both as a sailor and as a cyclist. Regards EileenSanda (talk) 07:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your comments, I appreciate your nice attitude to this AfD unlike some. you say "In the Faroes all the winners of this tour are considered notable sports persons" that is not the same as being notable in Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 07:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you have no commont on Hafsteinn who has participated at the Olympics and who is a notable sailor and cyclist from Iceland?EileenSanda (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both Torkil Veyhe[23] and Rógvi Johansen[24] have won medals in cycling at the Island Games, do you consider that notable? EileenSanda (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

they don't appear to meet Wikipedia:ATH#Cycling. LibStar (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That rule you refer to also says: Won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship); Well, Torkil Veyhe won gold at the Island Games.EileenSanda (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they are notable, this race is still classed as amateur and most competitors are amateur. LibStar (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are blue-linked cyclists participating. there is news coverage. the page is solidly sourced. granted, this is not the biggest race on the planet, let alone the biggest archipelago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:24, 22 July 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 Ketnet. The consensus is that there are insufficient sources to establish the notability of this show for a stand-alone article. If sufficient reliable sources are found at a future date, an article could be created if warranted. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NT van Ketnet[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2008 Interlaker (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ketnet. This source (which I think is based on a press release?) does support what the stub says, so It would be fine in Ketnet but may not be notable enough for its own article. Though there are a number of hits on Google, but I don't read Dutch so I don't know the reliability of them. Wugapodes (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this no0tice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lack of sources is not a valid delete reason. I just put Wugapodes's source into the article so even less reason. Merge could create WP:UNDUE in Ketnet. Best for AfD to leave this alone let editors more familiar with this material decide how it should be organized. ~Kvng (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt that a single sentence about a channel published by the network would violate WP:UNDUE. Also, lack of sources in an article isn't a reason for deletion but lack of sources existing is. My point is that none of the ones I saw on Google looked particularly non-trivial (they looked to be channel listings or self-published from the ones I looked at). And the fact that the article has remained unsourced for 7 years makes me less inclined to believe proper sources exist. If it were a new article I'd give more leeway and time to see if maybe something was overlooked but when it's been around 7 years without a single source being added, I believe that's non-trivial in discussing notability. Wugapodes (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Ketnet. No independent reliable sources indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:25, 17 July 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Strelnikova[edit]

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

Aside from more specific considerations such as WP:1E (her alleged notability stems from maybe being very old but maybe not, thus the one event I refer to here is "getting really old" not "an individual birthday") and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, this individual does not seem to meet the general guidelines of WP:N. Setting aside my arguably WP:ORish contention that her age has never been verified by an organization with the credentials to do so (such as Guinness World Records or the GRG), even if she really was 115, there is no Wikipedia policy that grants automatic notability to people of an extreme age, which makes WP:N the relevant policy. Specifically, I do not see any evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent third-party sources. She seems to have had a brief burst of attention in early 2005 for her age, followed by a stream of Russian-language obituaries after her death two months later and nothing since (that I could uncover), meaning that she lacks the sustained coverage that would distinguish her from thousands of other individuals claiming (falsely or otherwise) to be very old. There's nothing here of encyclopedic merit that could not be (and is not) covered by the longevity claims article. Canadian Paul 17:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - being 115 years old is not a WP:1E situation. It's not an event but a very rare achievement. There are articles with non-trivial coverage about her life (such as living through the Siege of Leningrad etc). —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Longevity claims#Past. Unverified means she isn't worthy of her own article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being older than someone else is not notable. I am the oldest person sitting in this chair, but that does not suffice. It is even less notable if there is no proof of age.--Rpclod (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the longevity claim is not verified.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 24 July 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 Mikey Way. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Century[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable band. There's no album out (yet), and the announced EP isn't released by a notable record label. The coverage is minimal; the only thing that really counts as "coverage" is the MTV story--a few hundred words, and most of it quotes from Way. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, unless someone can find more good sources. There's a few brief news stories along the lines of "Electric Century have a single out", and a couple of interviews, but no reviews and not much in depth coverage. You might want to merge to My Chemical Romance since most media coverage focuses on the MCR link, but I'm not 100% that's a good idea, since the connection is not very close. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band features members of two notable bands and a former member from a semi-notable band. The band is also working on a full album and has been covered by the press multiple times. I.Wont.Give.In (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing that matters here is the last thing, the coverage by reliable sources. If a few short articles make for notability, we might as well do away with the whole concept of "deletion" altogether. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to the Mikey Way article (if it stays, which it probably should) or the the MCR article. This is notable enough and has sufficient coverage to be included somewhere even though there isn't a lot to be said at the moment - as well as 2 MTV articles there is print coverage in Rock Sound. I see no reason that we shouldn't at least mention what the members of MCR did after the band split up. --Michig (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of articles don't make for notability, Michig. I also see no reason why we shouldn't etc., but there is plenty of room for that in the MCR article. As for Mikey Way, there isn't a single verified biographical fact in his revamped article, so besides saying "afterward he started another band" there just isn't much to say. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:BAND criteria. Perhaps too soon.--Rpclod (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep/Redirect/Merge~~ - I'd like to add to my previous statement by saying if the page does not say (which it should) it should be redirected and partially merged to mikey way. I.Wont.Give.In (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only one !vote per person. If you want to change your prior !vote, please unbold and strike it and then enter the new !vote. For what its worth, I don't disagree with a re-direct to Mikey Way.--Rpclod (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to meet WP:MUSIC #6. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Only one of the members, Mikey Way, is deemed notable enough to have a WP article. The other two hyperlinked member names merely link to other bands. I don't think WP:MUSIC #6 is met.--Rpclod (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect: to Mikey Way. The MTV news source will support the content there, the rest of this article is sourced with a blog re-post, brief mentions, itunes and twitter?? Not exactly WP:RS. Vrac (talk) 14:25, 26 July 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marijan Ćorić[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played in any WP:FPL. According to this player has only been on bench, not on field as infobox suggests. This article creator needs to be stopped. Qed237 (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:24, 21 July 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.