Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 July	28 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 keep. Swarm ♠ 23:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proportional approval voting[edit]

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

Delete per WP:G4. Markus Schulze 07:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the reason for prior deletion no longer applies - this article was previously deleted, as it had insufficient sources, and was therefore deemed 'original research'. This is no longer the case, and while the article is substantially the same as before (because the method itself has not changed!) there are now articles and papers about it including one from 2014 regarding algorithmic complexity. In addition to this, it appears to fit within the project Elections and Referendums, as noted on its talk page by Number 57, which is aiming to, among other things, improve coverage of various voting methods. Felixaldonso (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Note: User:Felixaldonso is the re-creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the new article is currently well sourced (issue raised in past discussions). The lead specifies it is theoretical and the fact that several people other than the inventor have published articles about it points to notability. Furthermore, the deletion discussions date back to 2009 and 2007. Things have changed since then. This is not the kind of repetitive recreation that G4 is meant to deal with. The article should be evaluated for its own merits. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the citations to credible sources that have appeared since the previous deletions: Noyster (talk), 23:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Felixaldonso & Happysquirrel. Subject is credibly sourced & notable.--JayJasper (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment large parts of the article's text seem to have been copied verbatim from this paper (Section D, on page 9). Or has the author of the paper had access to the previously deleted Wikipedia article, and copied it from there? What about WP:COPYVIO? Kraxler (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article has now been reworded to address these concerns. Some of the wording was from the previously deleted article, however the age of the paper you reference is ambiguous, so the article has been changed. Felixaldonso (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 23:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Cox (politician)[edit]

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

Subject is not notable enough for an article (WP:NPOL) Frinton100 (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A former local councillor and unsuccessful parliamentary candidate, failing WP:NPOLITICIAN. Highbeam and Questia searches return nothing, while Google returns nothing that indicates broader biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Run of the mill local pol. Bearian (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- as we usually do for failed Parliamentary candidates. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unelected local politician. Carrite (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, obviously. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 South Americasian Cup[edit]

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

Obvious speculation per WP:BALL. It also seems implausible for such event to take place due to Copa América Centenario. Racer-Ωmegα 22:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Racer-Ωmegα 22:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Racer-Ωmegα 22:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Racer-Ωmegα 22:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious hoax is obvious. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm not seeing to suggest keeping and my searches found nothing aside from mirrors. SwisterTwister talk 00:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as obvious hoax —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:31, 29 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. Swarm ♠ 23:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Orton[edit]

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

Unsourced, not notable HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Article cites one source, which just supports his birth. Also, in November 2014, the rumor of a "Jasper Orton" being signed to WWE was debunked. Prefall 22:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.LM2000 (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG, notability not inherited from family - starship.paint ~ KO 11:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ~~DISCUSSION CLOSED!~~, Jasper Orton is not an article anymore i've moved it as a user page where it was before sorry for causing trouble with this article but I thought he was an existing and notable person which turned out to be not true months ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SethAdam99 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SethAdam99 You cannot close the discussion. Do not blank the page. Do not move it to some obscure spot. Keep it where it is located. Only admins can delete the page. Discussion are usually left open for one week before judgement. Bgwhite (talk) 04:50, 31 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. Swarm ♠ 00:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Book of Giants[edit]

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

The article has been completely unreferenced for over 5 years. I can't find any reviews of the novel or any other sources that would help satisfy any aspect of WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I completely agree, my searches found nothing good aside from amazon.com, goodreads, etc. but nothing even in the slightest good. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to author Ruth Manning-Sanders which could do with a bit of 'fleshing out' in its list of works. Was going to say Keep but have only been able to find one review[1] and one instance of it being used for school study [2] (incorporated into the article) which is unfortunately the way with a lot of English children's books from this era. (sigh...) Coolabahapple (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have found a reliably-sourced review on the Guardian & Observer Digital Archive, by Naomi Lewis in the Observer of 22nd July 1962, page 19: "A splendid jacket by Robin Jacques at once invites the eye. Of course, myths have almost always been unfair to giants: still, we could not separate them from nursery lore, especially when, as in several of these tales, they are merely kindly, stupid fellows, easily outwitted (but not slain) by some sharp little dwarf. Though some are from local sources, others are from as far afield as Russian Georgia or Jutland. But are they so different?" Maybe this could be added as a source if the article survives? RobinCarmody (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now we have two reviews which satisfies WP:NBOOK. And there is also a cover of a German edition of 1974 here. Kraxler (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reviews found by Coolabahapple (talk · contribs) and RobinCarmody (talk · contribs) clearly demonstrate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (books) as noted by Kraxler (talk · contribs).
Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria #2 says that a book is notable if "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." Cunard (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
changed to Keep as it now meets WP:NBOOKS(hooooraay:)) thanks to RobinCarmody, have incorporated The Observer review into the article.Coolabahapple (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NBOOK notability criteria are clearly met. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extensive commentary by Donner addresses arguments against deletion, which are slim to begin with. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish at Alexander's Bridge[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Insignificant event with no Significant coverage. Event appeared to have no enduring historical significance, per WP:EVENTCRIT. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least merge to Battle of Chickamauga - I see no reason for this to be deleted. This a Civil War battle in which 105 + people were killed on the Union side alone, and it was declared a Union victory, so obviously a lot more than 105 rebels were pwned, and there was a consensus on the outcome. I don't see any reason why it would fail notability - if you search for Alexander's Bridge + September 18, 1863 you get enough results to know it was significant.[3], [4] Jefferson Davis himself refers to it as a "severe skirmish" [5] —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It already has a paragraph in Battle of Chickamauga#Opening engagements: September 18, and I don't see it ever being called the "Skirmish at Alexander's Bridge", so a redirect seems pointless. However, a hatnote in Alexander's Bridge seems reasonable, so I've added one. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what kind of technology you're using to search with, but I found it referred to as a skirmish. It's also included in this book as such. [6] Additionally see link above where Jefferson Davis refers to it in his history of the confederacy book, as a "severe skirmish." —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may be referred to as a skirmish, but where is it called the Skirmish at Alexander's Bridge? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and if cannot be expanded merge all small ones into a larger list of "Skirmishes of the American Civil War", and keep the name as a redirect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I post this shorter version of a longer comment I made at another of the AfDs concerning the recently posted series of stub articles on minor Civil War engagements because other readers or commenters, and the person who may close this discussion, may not see the other versions of this comment in relation to the same proposal. A list of Civil War skirmishes, or minor engagements to be more complete, would be long indeed. Long, E. B. The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861–1865. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. OCLC 68283123, p. 719 states that Dyer, 1908 divides the military actions of the Civil War into 29 campaigns, 76 battles, 310 engagements, 46 combats, 1026 actions, 29 assaults, 6,337 skirmishes, 299 operations, 26 sieges, 64 raids, 727 expeditions, 252 reconnaissances, 434 scouts, 639 affairs, 82 occupations and 79 captures. I have looked carefully at Dyer's book and I could find no explanation of how he came up with these names for the various military events of the Civil War. I think 76 is too few for battles. Many of the actions not shown as skirmishes probably would have to be thrown into a list of skirmishes to be complete. It would be a big list, even if subdivided by states, and a big job. A list of a few of them which have been mentioned in deleted articles or stubs, which also may be proposed for deletion, would be too incomplete to be worth much. In this case, I think that the action at Alexander's Bridge should be include in the Battle of Chickamauga and Chickamauga campaign articles, and possibly even receive separate treatment rather than be relegated to some list of skirmishes or otherwise completely omitted. Donner60 (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of historical significance beyond that of Battle of Chickamauga, so it fails WP:EVENTCRIT. All the information that is worth keeping in some form is already within that article. This is an example of breaking out articles further than is necessary. A redirect is not necessary because this is not a plausible search term. ~ Rob^Talk 04:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a close call but this small battle is already covered in summary in the Battle of Chickamauga article and can, and almost certainly should be, included not only in that article but in the Chickamauga Campaign article. While this might seem to indicate a "merge" would be the proper course, there is nothing new in this article to merge except the Confederate casualty number of 105, so a merge in effect would be a delete.

If we look only at the facts in light of the general notability guidelines, because I can find nothing that gives any guidance on how to evaluate this specific type of military event, we would have to conclude that this was a notable event. It receives significant coverage from reliable sources. Powell, David A. Failure in the Saddle: Nathan Bedford Forrest, Joe Wheeler, and the Confederate Cavalry in the Chickamauga Campaign. New York: Savas Beatie, LLC, 2010. ISBN 978-1-932714-87-6 has a ten-page chapter on Alexander's Bridge and some earlier remarks. White, William Lee. Bushwhacking on a Grand Scale: The Battle of Chickamauga, September 18-20, 1863. El Dorado Hills, CA: Savas Beattie LLC, 2013. ISBN 978-1-61121-158-0 has a chapter "Alexander's Bridge." The important campaign study, Cozzens, Peter. This Terrible Sound: The Battle of Chickamauga. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1992. ISBN 978-0-252-01703-2, has three solid pages and other text on Alexander's Bridge. Other sources cover it, if more briefly, including Alexander Mendoza, Chickamauga 1863: Rebel Breakthrough, Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2013 and Steven E. Woodworth Six Armies in Tennessee: The Chickamauga and Chattanooga Campaigns, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1998.

A small Union force of just under 1,000 men held off the leading brigade of a Confederate division which was attempting to cross the Chickamauga Creek on September 18, 1863. Confederate General Braxton Bragg had ordered his corps commanders to cross the creek at four locations to split and defeat in detail the separated Union Army corps. Union Colonel John T. Wilder's "Lightning Brigade", who through private efforts were armed with 7-shot Spencer repeating rifles, defended a previous gap in the Union forward defenses at Alexander's Bridge along Chickamauga Creek. Along with the defenses at Reed's Bridge, Jay's Mill and one or two other locations, the Confederates were delayed in crossing the creek in force almost all day. The Union Army had time to consolidate for the main battle of Chickamauga which started the next day.

So why not have a separate article on this apparently important engagement as well as the other skirmishes or minor battles on September 18? I think they are integral parts of the Battle of Chickamauga, certainly of the 9-day Chickamauga campaign, and can be handled in those article. Reed's Bridge and Alexander's Bridge are already handled by paragraphs in the battle article, which as an opening engagements on September 18 section. I think these paragraphs probably should be expanded by a few sentences or another paragraph or so. I think some mention should be made in the campaign article of these and any other notable actions during the campaign that are not the subject of separate articles but appear to be of significance to the overall campaign and final large battle. If Bragg had been able to get his uncooperative subordinates to move faster, and Union advance units had not delayed them when they moved, the Union Army may have been caught in at least three separate locations in turn by the entire Confederate force. As to the importance of the action at Alexander's Bridge, Powell says at page 120: "In short, Wilder's stout defense cost the Confederates the entire afternoon...."

The September 18 actions have been treated in the books as implicitly or directly as part of the Battle of Chickamauga. They deserve coverage and maybe even redirects. Whether to include such actions as part of a larger battle or a campaign or in separate articles has no clear guidance that I know about, but I think that separate articles are the exception for actions immediately preceding a main battle. I would certainly argue in favor of keeping articles on preliminary actions like those that occurred on September 18, 1863, if they had occurred some days earlier and were not included in the larger articles or took too much space to adequately explain, but I think that is not a necessary outcome here. The only other alternative may be whether Alexander's Bridge and the other actions were large enough and there are enough available facts about them to justify a briefer mention in the battle and campaign articles, as they have in the battle article, but also a separate "main article" for these separate preliminary engagements. I think it is a close call here but I think it is proper to include the September 18 battles (and maybe some September 17 skirmishes) as part of the other Chickamauga articles without having a separate, and no doubt larger, article for each one. I say each one because although Alexander's Bridge may be the most significant, the others receive coverage as well.

I am not sure whether Alexander's Bridge is a plausible search term but I think in view of the coverage in several books, at least a few readers might look for the action under a separate name, but possibly not "Skirmish at Alexander's Bridge.

The 105 casualties were Confederate casualties. Powell, page 117. Cozzens, page 113. Dyer includes Union casualties in a total for the battle. I have not seen a Union casualty figure only for the action at Alexander's Bridge in other sources but it is clear from the narrative that the Union force did not eventually retire unscathed, after some Confederates waded the stream out of range and outflanked them. Maybe a figure could be found but an implication of lower casualties, as the sources appear to imply, may suffice. Donner60 (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:16, 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. Too many of the keeps do not present an argument--"you keep doing it" is not an argument, even if true; "I googled it" is never an argument; "keep" is not an argument". Complications with dating signaled by Donner present good arguments for the lack of enduring historical significance, arguments which on one countered. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish at Alderson Ferry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Insignificant event with no Significant coverage. Event appeared to have no enduring historical significance, per WP:EVENTCRIT. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the other Civil War skirmishes you keep nominating that I keep saying keep on. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So your measure of whether to keep or delete is based simply on the topic and the person nominating it? This alone should disqualify you from any rational discussion on Wikipedia. Could I suggest you actually read the article being nominated for deletion. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A compendium of the War of the Rebellion, Volume 1, linked to in the article, barely refers to Alderson Ferry. A historical marker plaque for Alderson's Ferry notes a small skirmish on July 12, 1862 and doesn't even mention the August 23, 1862 one cited in this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and if cannot be expanded merge all small ones into a larger list and keep the name as a redirect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a long list. Long, E. B. The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861–1865. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. OCLC 68283123, p. 719 states that Dyer, 1908 divides the military actions of the Civil War into 29 campaigns, 76 battles, 310 engagements, 46 combats, 1026 actions, 29 assaults, 6,337 skirmishes, 299 operations, 26 sieges, 64 raids, 727 expeditions, 252 reconnaissances, 434 scouts, 639 affairs, 82 occupations and 79 captures. I have looked carefully at Dyer's book and I could find no explanation of how he came up with these names for the various military events of the Civil War. I think 76 is too few for battles. Many of the actions not shown as skirmishes probably would have to be thrown into a list of skirmishes to be complete. It would be a big list, even if subdivided by states, and a big job. Donner60 (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of any evidence that would help us determine historical significance (casualties, specific significant people involved, or even a victorious side) can be taken as evidence that this is not significant. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. ~ Rob^Talk 04:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It rang a bell, so I ran a books google search on: skirmish + "Alderson Ferry". Here: [7]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Union Army; A History of Military Affairs in the Loyal States, 1861–65 — Records of the Regiments in the Union Army — Cyclopedia of Battles — Memoirs of Commanders and Soldiers. Wilmington, NC: Broadfoot Publishing, 1997. First published 1908 by Federal Publishing Company. Vol. 5, p. 24 lists a skirmish on July 12, 1862 (not August 23, 1862) at Alderson's Ferry in which two companies of Crook's cavalry killed or wounded 7 Confederates and captured 12 horses. Dyer, 1908, p. 972, lists no Union casualties at a skirmish at Alderson's Ferry on July 23, 1862 (neither July 12 or August 23). No 1862 action at Alderson's Ferry is mentioned in Cohen, Stan. The Civil War in West Virginia: A Pictorial History. Charleston, WV: Pictorial Histories Publishing Company, 1976. ISBN 978-0-933126-17-6 or Snell, Mark A. West Virginia and the Civil War: Mountaineers Are Always Free. Charleston, SC: The History Press, 2011. ISBN 978-1-59629-888-0. http://www.civilwartraveler.com/EAST/WV/MoreWV.html#Princeton mentions a "bloody" July 12, 1862 action and states that both sides used the ferry to cross the Greenbrier River and occasional fighting took place here. The July 1862 action appears to be connected to no particular campaign because of lack of significant actions in the area in that time period as shown by Dyer. Alderson's Ferry is too far south and west to have been a location in the Second Manassas Campaign and July 12, especially, would be too early a date. This can be confirmed in Hennessy, John J. Return to Bull Run: The Campaign and Battle of Second Manassas. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1993. ISBN 978-0-8061-318. The date apparently would have to be corrected to July 12 or July 23 - not sure which would is right since there is one source for each and no listing for any date for a skirmish at Alderson's Ferry is shown in Long, E. B. The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861–1865. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. OCLC 68283123. Despite the fact that one source shows some casualties for a skirmish at Alderson's Ferry in July 1862, few other details can be found about the skirmish. It appears to have been a rather small, isolated skirmish connected with no campaign and of no apparent strategic or other significance with few details and no memorable occurrence to be found in the most obvious available sources. Donner60 (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:15, 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. Nominator argues a. lack of sourcing and b. lack of enduring historical importance. None of the keeps add significant coverage (pointing to Google is just not helpful), and despite Donner's well-weighed commentary, even those comments don't convincingly argue, if they argue it at all, that this was an event of some historical importance. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish at Alcorn's Distillery[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Insignificant event with no Significant coverage. Event appeared to have no enduring historical significance, per WP:EVENTCRIT. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure why you're nominating all these Civil War battles. All you have to do is look up the place name + date and you get results.[8] —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link you added is for a non-free book. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. According to The Union Army: Cyclopedia of battles (the non-free book - search for "Alcorn's Distillery"), the skirmish involved 100 Union soldiers. From the snippet I can view, they took 12 prisoners without a struggle; unless one of them was Robert E. Lee or Jim Beam's ancestor, this had no lasting importance. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and if cannot be expanded merge all small ones into a larger list and keep the name as a redirect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I post this shorter version of a longer comment I made at another of the AfDs concerning the recently posted series of stub articles on minor Civil War engagements because other readers or commenters, and the person who may close this discussion, may not see the other versions of this comment in relation to the same proposal. A list of Civil War skirmishes, or minor engagements to be more complete, would be long indeed. Long, E. B. The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861–1865. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. OCLC 68283123, p. 719 states that Dyer, 1908 divides the military actions of the Civil War into 29 campaigns, 76 battles, 310 engagements, 46 combats, 1026 actions, 29 assaults, 6,337 skirmishes, 299 operations, 26 sieges, 64 raids, 727 expeditions, 252 reconnaissances, 434 scouts, 639 affairs, 82 occupations and 79 captures. I have looked carefully at Dyer's book and I could find no explanation of how he came up with these names for the various military events of the Civil War. I think 76 is too few for battles. Many of the actions not shown as skirmishes probably would have to be thrown into a list of skirmishes to be complete. It would be a big list, even if subdivided by states, and a big job. A list of a few of them which have been mentioned in deleted articles or stubs, which also may be proposed for deletion, would be too incomplete to be worth much. Donner60 (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lack of any evidence that would help us determine historical significance (casualties, specific significant people involved, or even a victorious side) can be taken as evidence that this is not significant. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. ~ Rob^Talk 04:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course there are sources, here: [9] it was a battle in the most well-written-up war in history. Please remember to follow WP:BEFORE before starting an AFD, or commenting in one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply counting sources does not address notability. In all sources that I've seen (and I did look quite a bit before commenting), this skirmish has a superficial mention and has no significant coverage. A small skirmish with no effect on the war for either side is not worthy of inclusion. ~ Rob^Talk 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. that being so, Why is this at AFD? Why can't the military history Civil War editors get together have a place and hash out what's a battle and what is a subhead or alternate name for a battle?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a big conflict like the Civil War, company-sized engagements generally don't mean much or get called battles. In a smaller one like the Vietnam War, something like the (still larger battalion vs. regiment) Battle of Ong Thanh has more relative significance and coverage. A search on "smallest Civil War battle" brings up the Battle of Dranesville, which involved 9000 soldiers, so this skirmish is not even in the ballpark. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion does not preempt an RfC or the creation of a new policy to better handle notability for Civil War skirmishes in general, although I doubt that these pop up often enough for that to be worthwhile. As for why this discussion must go beyond Civil War editors, keep WP:OWN in mind. Any interested editor can and should be able to comment in all discussions. ~ Rob^Talk 12:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Close call. This "battle" took place near Monticello, Kentucky. With that information, a little more can be discovered about it. Union Captain Wendell D. Wiltsie was sent on a patrol with 100 men from three different regiments in an effort to find the notorious Confederate guerrilla, Champ Ferguson, who was executed for murder (war crimes essentially) after the war. Instead, Wiltsie ran into an advance party of 300 of John Hunt Morgan's men who were preparing to launch Morgan's raid through Kentucky, Indiana and Ohio according to McKnight, Brian D. Confederate Outlaw: Champ Ferguson and the Civil War in Appalachia. The Cyclopedia says the Confederate force was "said to be" Morgan's men. Morgan's orders and the beginning of his raid were about a month later so I suppose that these men might have been from another command but it seems Ferguson did not have that many men in his guerrilla force and it is plausible that Morgan had men in Kentucky earlier. There is enough information in the Cyclopedia entry and McKnight's book to write two or three paragraphs about this. Ferguson and Morgan are both notable. The affair is typical of the unpredictable raids, including guerrilla raids, that garrisons in Kentucky and Tennessee, had to cope with. Some stiff fighting and counterattacks ensued, as well as the Union force burning the still because they thought it was a hiding place for bushwackers. According to the Cyclopedia, Wiltsie's unit suffered 12 casualties and reinforcements sent to help him suffered 3 more. (I don't like using skirmish in the title simply because I think the reader may be looking for "battles". The various titles for battles, engagements, skirmishes, actions and the like in the Civil War seem to have been made up by Dyer in 1908 and I can't find that he ever explained how he came up with the distinctions.) I think this is a close call but since we have a little more information about this and there are some indicators of notability, or at least the potential involvement of the forces of notable commanders, I would keep and expand the article. I don't think this is true of some of the other stubs that have been thrown up recently, which I just discovered. I have commented on two others so far and I will look at the others over the next few days if they are not closed before then. Donner60 (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like the idea of keeping something that didn't have much of an effect in the military sense simply because some well-known commanders were involved. That would open the floodgates. We'd have to include the action (also in the Cyclopedia) of March 2, 1863, at Aldie, Virginia, because Mosby himself personally led 70 of his men against 50 Union troops. Again, no real significance overall. As a side note, the National Park Service does classify this in passing as "Skirmish Alcorn's Distillery".[10] Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By way of comment and not argument: Not losing sight of the fact that we are considering general notability guidelines, I think we don't need to be overly restrictive about articles concerning historical events if they have some coverage in reliable sources, enough detail for a small article and some fact or detail of interest. I did note that this was a close call; I just happened to fall on the other side for the reasons I gave. There are only a limited number of these small engagements in which enough detail to write an article can be found and something of interest or note can be said about them - and which cannot be included in another article as part of a campaign, the lead up to or aftermath of a big battle or in connection with a biography of a commander. (The number of Civil War engagements are somewhat more than 10,000 but available facts, and notability, would support nowhere near that number of potential articles.) The limited number of stand-alone articles that might be created and the facts that Wikipedia does not face space limitations and undoubtedly has hundreds of thousands of articles about minor celebrities, short-run TV shows, entertainment events, you tubers, garage bands and every athlete that ever put on a uniform in a major professional league uniform diminishes the floodgates argument quite a bit for me - and I guess I am writing this in response to that word. I suppose this is getting us off track and is not worth debating, especially here, and also especially because I think our views on these matters - and perhaps more importantly on each article on a case by case basis - appear actually to be quite similar and are likely to mostly coincide as they do on the two other AfDs in this series of Civil War action stubs on which we have both commented so far. Donner60 (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a civil disagreement, not a war. Stick around, though. Magnolia has a bunch more from the same author to nominate after the verdicts are rendered on this group. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I have glanced at a few of those other articles and suspect we will agree on most of them and that most commenters will as well. If any turn out to be keepers in my opinion, they are likely to be close calls. I noticed that the nomination for Action at Abraham's Creek was denied speedy deletion. Since I hope to do a reasonably thorough research job on each, I incorporated my research into the article. If it is nominated at AfD, it can be evaluated on the basis that it is about the most that can be done with the article (although there are perhaps two or three other books I might glance at). Donner60 (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: It seems the primary argument here is that this battle is notable because one of its commanders is notable/interesting. Is that an accurate summarization of your position, and if so, how do you reconcile that with notability not being inherited? This is for clarification, not argument; I want to make sure I understand your position. ~ Rob^Talk 12:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely. Although first I would say that I think that inherited notability would not apply to a historical event because the very participation of notable persons adds to the notability of the event because they help make the event due to their participation or involvement. I might be wrong but I think that concept mostly or entirely applies to people. So by way of made up example, Elvis's son who did nothing but work at an anonymous job and mind his own business does not become notable because of the identity of his father. Presumably because of this, the son would not have independent coverage by reliable sources of anything he might have done of any note except for his being the son. Here we have some coverage in sources about an event in which there was some fighting and casualties and appear to have informed the Union garrison of the presence of a large force of Morgan's cavalry in the area. While Morgan himself apparently was not present, his men were almost certainly there by his command and apparently with a purpose that resulted in a notable raid. The facts that this was an unsuccessful attempt to find the notorious Ferguson, but the patrol found what seems to have been a large advance party of Morgan's men a short time before the start of their famous raid, and fought off this larger group successfully, makes this event more notable than an ordinary minor battle, in my opinion. It also seems to be a good example, because of the additional facts that we have, of what garrisons in border states or occupied areas had to cope with from guerrillas and raiders. Donner60 (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This fascination with the Civil War is amazing. Never have I seen so much well researched debate over a stub AfD (and the creator of this one left a trail of other stub skirmishes). Last April The Economist wrote this article about the US Civil War, stating "many Americans remain fascinated by the conflict. In 2002 the Library of Congress estimated that 70,000 books had been published about it, more than one a day since the war ended." Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A major problem with this type of trail of stub articles, regardless of the general topic, is summarized in the brief essay Wikipedia:Kittens. I will let that speak for itself but I do note that these types of articles present problems for reviewers and those interested in the general subject. The stubs may all appear to be on subjects without much notability or of any value as they stand, but the subject of a few of them may be notable and others might have some facts that could be included in other articles. Almost no guidance can be had from the articles. Reviewers must try to find out whether anything notable and significant can be found on the topic and decide what recommendations or actions to take (keep, merge, decline). My guess is that many people are not going to want to spend significant time finding information or cleaning up stubs that do not already have a few facts showing notability or interest and do not cite any of the references that might be found to support an article. And while some of the support may exist, it may not all be online. (I am fortunate to have quite a few books on military history, many on the American Civil War, and have access to Questia and JSTOR through Wikipedia.) I decided to omit an even longer discussion of this that I had drafted since I am probably approaching posting too much here already, even though this is related to evaluation of the series of stubs of which the subject article is one. Donner60 (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:15, 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. Sandstein 13:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Sen[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC with only a single weak secondary source that says nothing about Sen beyond the single fact of his presidency of Sutradhar Kala Sangam. McGeddon (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs some improvement, obviously. Perhaps Sitush or SpacemanSpiff can turn this turkey into a delicious centerpiece. There's some sourcing around that mentions him; unfortunately, the article is so badly written that I can't figure out what the guy might be notable for, whether those elections he supposedly won guarantee him automatic notability as an elected representative. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is pretty much the equivalent of a councillor in the UK. That's a fairly low bar and I can't think of any article where being a councillor amounts to sufficient notability for inclusion here. The article is obviously a fan piece. - Sitush (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush is right, this is the equivalent of a local councilman, see District Councils of India for information on it. —SpacemanSpiff 03:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The position doesn't seem important enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN, which is an extremely inclusive notability guideline to begin with. Pburka (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did dig around but could find nothing that might boost his notability. The sangam is just a small-ish local charity and in any event notability is not inherited, so his role within it would not sustain this separate article. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irish School Aid[edit]

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

The only link is dead. Google can find no evidence that this organisation exists and as an education advocate in Ireland it would definitely need a web page. The fact that an organisation promoting the Irish language doesn't have a name in Irish also sets off alarm bells for me. filceolaire (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That one book reference is kind of a scam, and it's a common kind of thing in such articles--essay-style paragraphs with decent citations that explain the problem a club is supposed to address, but don't mention the club. That's what happened here as well. With that gone, there is nothing here, and I nominated it for speedy deletion, A7. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Snappy (talk) 20:28, 29 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. Sandstein 12:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maek[edit]

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

Blatantly non-notable per General Notability and WP:MUSIC. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no evidence of the article passing WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC or WP:COMPANY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to pass any notability guideline. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks substantial RS coverage. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 20:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quirkyalone[edit]

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

Obscure neologism with flash-in-the-pan usage, now faded from the lexicon. While the article has some significant sources from the early 2000's, notability has not been enduring. Previous AFD closed as keep in 2009 before the concept of enduring notability was introduced. The Dissident Aggressor 19:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure what "enduring notability" is, but I think this ought to be deleted, pace Hobit, who voted "keep" in the last AfD but even their vote wasn't all that convinced. I think that a book here and a few mentions in a few papers do not make for encyclopedic notability; I see no evidence of widespread usage, let alone discussion of this term. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I will simply amend by first afd comment of "no evidence of widespread usage" to "no evidence of any usage". Beach drifter (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, there's no requirement for something to remain in discussion to remain in Wikipedia. Cited coverage shows notability, and just because it's faded from usage that doesn't mean it's no longer notable. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I still maintain that as a neologism, it fails. The sources do not show that it has ever been in widespread usage or really in usage at all. They just mention the book or the website and describe the authors use of the word. Beach drifter (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - the walled garden fallacy of WP:GNG. The Dissident Aggressor 04:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, for what it's worth: [11], [12], [13]. These are not very in-depth hits, but they're from 2015. I don't really care if this is kept or deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources kind of illustrate my point. They show that the term exists and was used by the original author, but they do not show that anyone every uses it. Beach drifter (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:30, 30 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. Sandstein 13:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alakazam (Pleasure Island)[edit]

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

Article is unreferenced, non unique and doesn't meet notability guidelines. Astros4477 (Talk) 19:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such things cannot be notable without extensive, in-depth reliable sourcing. That's not in this article, and not anywhere else I can find. As far as I can tell the only thing that's been written about this thing is something about a safety feature, and that's not enough. Delete. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Appears to be a run-of-the-mill, non-notable ride at an amusement park—there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that would make this one amusement ride rise above the hundreds of other similar rides in the world. Everything verifiable in the article that is not personal experience is already included at the Pleasure Island Family Theme Park article. Mz7 (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There was an easy solution: the article made no viable claim of importance, nor were references provided that could support such a claim. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enrico Thanhoffer[edit]

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

Re-nominating after discovering that the article was created by a repeat spammer, who may have been paid to create the article and/or news stories about the subject. Fails WP:N and WP:CREATIVE. There are no sources that discuss Thanhoffer in a reliable manner in anything more than just a mere mention of him. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:53, 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 delete. Sandstein 13:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MedjetAssist[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Classic passing mentions except for one local business magazine. Fails WP:CORP notability. Brianhe (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my rationale at the last AfD: Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Other than the one article from the Birmingham Business Journal, all of the references on the article are either unreliable sources, promotional in nature, or simply passing mentions of the company, separate from the substantive content of the story. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with the nomination and my own searches in google news and factiva turned up none of the kind of substantial in-depth coverage in RS that would be required to meet WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 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. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erigga (musician)[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 00:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this musician is not notable. The sources in the article does not qualify as reliable and independent, also, an article with a similar title has been speedily deleted in the past, if this is a new version of the same article, then no improvements have been made. Stanleytux (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 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 09:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 18:02, 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. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ilana gold[edit]

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

No evidence found of meeting notability requirements per WP:BIO or WP:SKATER for figure skating: assuming Ilana Gold=Ilana Goldfogel here and here, there is no evidence she has won any national championships or competed at the international level per WP:SKATER. A cursory Google news search reveals an arrest (for which the charges were dropped): a single, negative BLP event that does not constitute notability per WP:BLP1E. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried my best to clean it up and find sources, but no such luck. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Goldfogel is neither notable as a journalist, a figure skater nor as an example of continued Jewish name changing in the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 18:01, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Xelef[edit]

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

No RS, none found through a search. Numerous commanders of this militia, this person is not known. Ism schism (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly block the creator under WP:CIR. All his articles have either been WP:COPYVIOs, or they've cited no sources, or they've cited "Facebook" (not a specific page on Facebook, just "Facebook"). The article was also probably created during block evasion. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - other issues aside (which could probably even have made this a speedy delete IMO), the subject seems to fail WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage" in WP:RS. Anotherclown (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to The Bunny Game. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rodleen Getsic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Just a truly nothing article about an individual known in fringe circles for 1 event: an indie film that has a small cult following. Totally fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to The Bunny Game. While WP:BLP1E isn't exactly on point, as the redirect would be to a movie, rather than an event, the redirect would be helpful, as the movie is what she is known for (and is really the only notable thing in her career). Inks.LWC (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sorry sometimes my other personalities don't understand Wikipedia's ways. - TV ● ✉ ✓ 22:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.58.135 (talk) [reply]

I have struck the above !vote as an impersonation. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give them a short 48 hour block and a stern warning. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Redirect to The Bunny Game as there's nothing to suggest good independent notability with my searches here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 18:10, 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 10:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 18:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Bunny Game. The only sourced content relates to the film and can be summarized there. There's a decent New York Times article here but as that focuses on the film it would be better used as a source there. --Michig (talk) 20:14, 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. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L'A Capone[edit]

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

Minimally sourced biography of a rapper with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, whose actual claim of notability seems to hinge on an assertion of an "uncanny amount of notoriety on the internet" (as if it were possible to objectively quantify the exact amount of notoriety it would take to trip over the line dividing uncanny from canny.) All of the other substance here seems to sit on claims of a gang violence role in his death and unverified statements of what some unspecified people believe about it, and none of it seems to suggest any reason why he would belong in an encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 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 10:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for same reasons mentioned by nominator. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 18:00, 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. Sandstein 12:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists[edit]

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

no evidence of notability. I see a number of mentions in G News, , but I can not find anything substantial. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm prepared to accept that they satisfy GNG, and, frankly, I think they are influential and important. They have, for example, influenced judicial reform [14] and are a "key knowledge repository" on the subject of judicial integrity [15]. Without prejudice to the question of notability, this seems a plausible redirect to its parent organisation, the ICJ, with mergeable content. James500 (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to International Commission of Jurists. It's a division of a larger organization. Our article on the parent organization doesn't talk about the Kenyan Section currently, but there are enough sources to justify a mention there and redirect. Not enough to justify a stand-alone article, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 18:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of 21 autonomous "National Sections" of the ICJ: our article mentions the existence of National Sections in the lead, but does not expand upon them. The main news coverage of the Kenyan section or "chapter" in the past few years was when they sought and obtained an arrest warrant for the president of Sudan,[16] which unsurprisingly led to a breakdown of diplomatic relations[17] : Noyster (talk), 09:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cable 7 Television[edit]

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

Article about a defunct community television channel in England, resting entirely on a single primary source and written in a surprisingly advertorial tone for something that's defunct. This would quite likely be eligible for a properly written and reliably sourced article, but it doesn't qualify to keep an article that's written and sourced like this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 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 10:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 18:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I have grave doubts as to whether a defunct community TV station is notable, quite apart from ,the issue of sourcing. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BROADCAST "Cable television - Generally, national or regional cable channels are presumed notable. Public access cable stations are not presumed notable unless they serve a major city or a large regional area. For example, a statewide public access channel, or a channel for all of New York City could be presumed notable." Well, Leicester is not London. Besides, there is no coverage, only source in the article is the subject's own (archived) website. Kraxler (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hamari Adhuri Kahani#Soundtrack. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Mishra[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. The sources only mention him in passing and a WP:BEFORE search did not provide anything substantial. Mkdw ^talk 05:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mkdw ^talk 21:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mkdw ^talk 21:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 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 10:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ Recent debut with a single song in a Bollywood movie. Here's the news google search on his name [18]. with that kind of attention, he is probably assured a contract for another movie. I think it makes sense to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject doesn't have enough coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV and we can't WP:CRYSTAL his potential future notability under the rationale he is "probably assured" another movie contract. See WP:ATA. Lastly, even if musicians provide music to a film, unless they receive significant coverage for doing so, they are not considered inherently notable for doing so. Mkdw ^talk 18:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not using a crystal ball. Just going on the good reviews here: [19] and [20]. Nice debut.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those sources mention the individual in passing. i.e. music by along with several other individuals who have credits in the film. Mkdw ^talk 20:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But several have a paragraph or a sentence about him, granted, some like the song he co-wrote and sang, some don't.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hamari_Adhuri_Kahani#Soundtrack and add one or two lines over there where his one-song is mentioned. He definitely doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO but some hits in RS are present and a redirect is better than delete. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:10, 30 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. Already deleted as A7. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Harvey (Musician)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, where the most substantive claim of notability in the entire article is an unverifiable POV assertion that he's "highly regarded". It asserts that he worked as a musician and composer, but fails to provide any real or reliably sourced detail about his career except that he's now a high school music teacher (my working theory being that the article was created by one of his students.) In truth, I'd have speedied this, but there's already a declined speedy in its edit history. It's still a definite delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 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 10:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:59, 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. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unspeakables Crew[edit]

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

Article, relying entirely on primary sources (it actually lists "Personal conversations with Unspeakables Crew" as one of its references, but none of the others are any better), about a dance crew notable only for participating in, but not winning, a dance competition. The fact that you can point to primary sources to verify that a group exists is not what gets them into Wikipedia, however — reliable source coverage which verifies that they pass one of our notability rules is the ticket, but nothing like that has been provided here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 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 10:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable band, as per Bearcat, delete.Hafspajen (talk) 20:18, 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. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Francis[edit]

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

It appears this article is not salvagable from its unsourced state as my searches (News, Newspapers Archive, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) all found nothing aside from browser links confirming he exists. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run-of-the-mill television journalist with no indication that he passes notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 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 10:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:59, 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 redirect to American Idol (season 9). (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Delamor[edit]

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

Non-notable singer that fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO should be redirect back to American Idol (season 9) where she was a semi-finalist. Aspects (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - all mentions in sources are in connection with season 9 of American Idol, so redirect to that article is sufficient. Clearly does not meet criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Melcous (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 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 10:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:59, 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. Sandstein 13:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benelli CB M2[edit]

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

No source verifies WP:V the notability WP:GNG of this prototype firearm. Google News turn up nothing, Google Books turn up no WP:RS references. AadaamS (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources are there if you take the time to look for them. This design folded in the late 1980s so it's no surprise that it's not at the top of Google News.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe the consensus is that guns.ru is a reliable source. As Mike said, the design didn't see widespread usage, and it was from a while ago, so sources will be less prevalent online than sources for a more modern project like the Metal Storm. Faceless Enemy (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 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 10:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:59, 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. Sandstein 13:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-djent[edit]

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

This is not a topic. Whatever things might be said to be leading to the djent genre might be called proto-djent but they are not a separate genre. Instead they would simply be the background to djent, a paragraph of introductory material in the djent article. Binksternet (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even djent itself has been described as a micro-genre for metal geeks, so the idea that proto-djent can be its own genre is ludicrous. Smaller than a micro-genre, I guess it would have to be a nano-genre. In any case, there's nothing in the literature about proto-djent being its own genre. Rather, the literature may use the term proto-djent to describe those things that influenced the formation of djent, that led up to djent. Binksternet (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Djent is barely notable in its own right; "proto-djent" is not a genre or notable at all. One unreliable source does not support making an entire article. 198.169.127.201 (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 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 10:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no source verify the notability of this subject. Google turns up no WP:RS. AadaamS (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A brief summary of a non-notable blog post. Both artists mentioned here are already addressed at greater length in the Djent article. This neologism also has too little currency to merit a redirect. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot seem to find coverage in reliable sources. The blog counts for nothing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested nomination. Sandstein 13:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Bass[edit]

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

The article does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability criteria. JAEVI (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is not notable. Text of article largely talks of work of his father, which does not make Jake notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 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 10:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:58, 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. Sandstein 12:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AKMAL EYZAD[edit]

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

Contested PROD. A case of WP:TOOSOON. Could find no signs to establish notability. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not yet met the notability requirements for a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete nothing to suggest he meets WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete- promotional article about a non-notable musician. And what's with the capitalised title? Reyk _YO! 09:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Swarm ♠ 20:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambarish Mitra[edit]

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

personal / promotional biography. The subject is not Notable MahenSingha (Talk) 15:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The biography has been written from a neutral point-of-view. The subject has received coverage by many secondary sources, though only a few were needed to fill the information in the article. Guess it depends on one's definition of "significant". Chcameron (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sourced statement proving the person to be an outstanding CEO making him so notable. Simply advertising for self or owned company finds no place here on wikipedia.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe redirect to Blippar as he's received a lot of coverage for this (such as [Ambarish Mitra this but I'm not sure about independent notability at this time here (fades by page 6) and here. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a self promotion article. The author is SPA for Ambarish Mitra.Sulabhvarshney (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Promotional tone is not serious enough to warrant deletion. Available sources meet WP:SIGCOV. ~Kvng (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to get some attention in the media, two of the refs in the article (Sunday Times and Evening Standard) look good. There's also Ambarish Mitra: From runaway teen to tech genius and entrepreneur (DNA India), A Year In A Delhi Slum (Fast Company), European tech: In Silicon Valley’s shadow (Financial Times), a Turkish source, What kind of start-up would refuse to sell for $1.7 billion? Just Blipp it (in Business Today), passes WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of Vanity Fair (British magazine) caricatures (1880–84). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Anstruther-Thomson of Charleton and Carntyne[edit]

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

I, too, like celebrated 19th century British gentlemen but I do not think that being solely a celebrated 19th century British gentleman can be a justification for an article. He is not Beau Brummell, after all, is he? The Traditionalist (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not finding much except passing mentions, but I would be rather surprised to find that someone caricatured by Spy in Vanity Fair was not notable at the time. I suspect I am missing something. PWilkinson (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PWilkinson: Many of these people currently do not have an article and I believe that they do not deserve one. This list has many redlinks and they most of them seem to be either minor sportsmen or minor socialites (there is, of course, the occasional MP and the occasional railway baron, who do diserve an article). Being a minor socialite could be enough for a caricature but is not considered notable, even by that time′s standards. And this is what this particular gentleman was.--The Traditionalist (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: if it is felt that having been caricatured in Vanity Fair does not indicate notability, how about merging the non-notable articles with the lists of caricatures themselves? In Anstruther-Thomson's case it would be something like this (though formatted more neatly):

Publication Date	Subject	Caption	Caricaturist	Notes
1882-06-10	Montagu David Scott MP	East Sussex	Spy	S 403
1882-06-17	Mr John Anstruther-Thomson	Fife	Spy	M 0257; Biography Colonel John Anstruther-Thomson of Charleton and Carntyne VD DL JP (8 August 1818 – 8 October 1904) was the son of John Anstruther-Thomson of Charleton and Clementina Blair. He died at age 86. He would have inherited the title of the 18th Lord St. Clair on 10 April 1833, but for the attainder. Military career He commissioned into the 9th Lancers and then also saw service in 13th Light Dragoons. In 1860 the Fifeshire Mounted Rifle Volunteers were re-raised and the then Captain Anstruther Thomson joined on leaving the Regular Army. In 1866 ^[1] he took over command from the late Earl of Rosslyn of the same Regiment his father had commanded some half a century before. After his command he gained the rank of Honorary Colonel of the Fife and Forfar Imperial Yeomanry. He was decorated with the award of Volunteer Decoration (VD). He held the office of Deputy Lieutenant of Fife and the office of Justice of the Peace in Fife. During his life he lived at Carntyne, Lanarkshire, Scotland and Charleton, Fife, Scotland. Family and Children He married his first wife Caroline Maria Agnes Robina Gray (daughter of Reverend John Hamilton Gray of Carntyne) on 25 July 1852.^[2] They had seven children: Clementina Caroline Anstruther-Thomson (died 7 Jul 1921) Rosia Mary Anstruther-Thomson (died 13 Feb 1956) Olivia Beatrice Louisa Anstruther-Thomson (died 17 Nov 1941) John St. Clair Anstruther-Thomson (4 Jun 1853 – 4 Jul 1873) Charles Frederick St. Clair Anstruther of Charleton (6 May 1855 – 21 Oct 1925) William Anstruther-Gray of Kilmany and Carntyne (6 Sep 1859 – 17 Apr 1938) Arthur St. Clair Anstruther-Thomson (19 November 1872 – 16 October 1904) He married his second wife, Isabel Bruce (daughter of Lt.-Gen. Robert Bruce) on 17 June 1891. They had one child: Rachel Jean Anstruther-Thomson d. 17 Sep 1968
1882-06-24	Capt Arthur Gooch	Goochie	Spy	M 0258

^ http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/issues/23162/pages/5032
^ Charles Mosley, editor, Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, 3 volumes (Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A.: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 2003), volume 1, page 643.

Opera hat (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Opera hat: This looks like a good idea, but unless we find more articles of people with a Vanity Fair caricature which should be deleted, this one's entry will look bizarrely unique.--The Traditionalist (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a nice picture, but his career - JP, DL, Hon. Colonel is just not enough for notability. I so not think we go in for galleries of Vanity Fair cartoons. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subhan bakery[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and only mentioned in references ~GottaGoFast ^{Step^{it^up}} 17:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete unless it can be improved as the best my searches was this and this and I'm not even seeing a possibility of local notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:43, 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 10:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per User talk:SwisterTwister, very possible not stuff for encyclopedia, not that notable. Hafspajen (talk) 18:23, 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 Cuisine of the Midwestern United States. Consensus is fairly clear that the article should is not suitable and should be merged, but as an aside, however, the current article does not even claim that this is a significant feature of midwestern cuisine, it claims that it's a thing in "small rural German-American communities". This is pretty specific and if we can find a place to mention this in the target article it should be given due weight (i.e. very little coverage). I would also suggest that the topic could be given more in-depth coverage in a more suitable article such as German American#Culture perhaps. This page should be redirected to any article that ends up covering the topic more than the current target can. Swarm ♠ 20:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wurst mart[edit]

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

Non-notable. No references; has been tagged for no references since 2007. valereee (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's some coverage in local press (e.g.[21][22][23]) and I found a mention in a thesis[24] but from what I can see, it's not really enough to be separately notable. Could it be merged somewhere, maybe Cuisine of the Midwestern United States? Colapeninsula (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cuisine of the Midwestern United States. I had looked into this before, and after further source searches, does not appear to have received enough coverage for a standalone article. A merge is a functional WP:ATD-M that would enhance the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support Merge to Cuisine of the Midwestern United States. It does seem to be a thing in certain areas. valereee (talk) 11:26, 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 10:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree with a Merge to Cuisine of the Midwestern United States. Sandstein 13:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think that a merge to Cuisine of the Midwestern United States is appropriate, and I think that it is not easily feasible. The Cuisine article is about dishes, this article is about an event. That some type of food is the subject of the event can not equate it to a dish or a type of cuisine. It is also not clear where this should be added at the cuisine article. Kraxler (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Power of the Sea[edit]

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

Part of a growing collection of articles all created to promote the work of Kamran Qureshi, this 23-minute video fails WP:NFILM. It has apparently been WP:BROADCAST, yes, but I don't believe that trumps our basic notability requirements. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a researcher, just read this article and found it quite informative, infact fit for any encyclopedia and helped me in research. I believe our British Army have more or less same features. I can't see how it is promoting someone? Can anyone explain please?Flowers4mums (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The creator has also created an article on the series Har Dam Tayyar and that is where all these articles on the short episodes should be redirected. They are not independently notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Shawn in Montreal and Flowers4mums for your time. Articles created by me till todate have diversity in subjects like Motherly wisdom, living and dead personalities, good parenting, how to raise high performing children, young girls choosing their careers, human smuggling, emotions of transgender people, Army, Navy, Air Force, prostitution, music concert film and Importance of Maritime sector and so on... there is no promotion of any individual or company in my articles.

As part of wiki family, I respect all family members and their POV. Reference to my recent articles about Pakistan Army, Navy and Air Force, (Sons of the Soil, Power of the Sea, and Flying Tigers) as they are entirely different in nature, departments and operations and what I understand is, this is the reason why Avtek Media Group made separate documentaries and I have created separate articles as there is a need to justify with the subjects.

The Making show was made and named Har Dam Tayyar for TV promotions to explain audience the topics and importance of these documentaries. This is what article Har Dam Tayyar is saying. I recommend these articles should remain separate and all will have their separate notability. Trust me. Kind regards Talentforfilm (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many (or all?) of those "diversity in subjects" are simply topics addressed in largely non-notable Kamran Qureshi shows that you've created articles for. User:Flowers4mums is a single purpose account that had popped up at Afd to support you, using the same terrible English grammar as you, and I think you and the whole affair is fishy, though I'm not sure what will be done about it. Maybe nothing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Talentforfilm.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seperately notable, even 'parent' article is full of dubious sources.Pincrete (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, on that point, it's my understanding of WP:TVSERIES that it seems to trump WP:GNG. That if Har Dam Tayyar was nationally broadcast, it doesn't matter if it has reliable sources or not? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, wait, the guideline does provide some parameters: "the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone...a national television program may not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any significant media coverage."Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken it to Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Har Dam Tayyar. Let's see what we shall see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run-of-the-mill TV fodder, no lasting impact, no reviews, web searches for such a common sequence of words are rather useless, the refs in the article are youtube and vimeo. Kraxler (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sol Rezza[edit]

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

There is just barely enough information in the article to suggest notability sufficient to avoid the csd list, but I remain unconvinced that there is enough notability here for the article to remain on site. I'll leave that decision to the community. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very very weak~~ keep I went through most of the refs. At least a half dozen have no mention of her (#s 1-3, 6, 10, 14). Another group are mentions in announcements of events, playlists, or blogs (#s 6, 9, 12, 14-16). I have no idea if these are RS (#s 4,-5, 13). The ones listed as #21 & 22 indicate that she was given an award at a music festival in Berlin (CTM festival). I don't know how significant this is, but the festival is ongoing so it might be notable. As an underground artist, the only sources are going to be underground sources, so determining notability is very difficult. For sure, though, the article should be edited to remove obviously non-RS sources. LaMona (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article references have been improved and those that were misleading have been replaced or fixed. Sol Rezza is an underground artist but with a mayor relevance in the radio art genre and experimental music genre. The article is being edited today to includeas much valid references as possible. Thanks for your input. Panz4_Troup%C3%A9 (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Panz4_Troup%C3%A9, thanks for working on the article. I still think it's weak, but still a keep. LaMona (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I haven't exhaustively looked at the references like LaMona but just spot checking some it's clear this article has changed a lot over the week since it has been nominated. I think it demonstrates sufficient notability for a keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 19 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)} 11:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. There are more references to Sol Rezza, mostly in Spanish language, Should I attach them to the current edition?. I do not want to overdo the amount of references in the article and already it has more than fifty references. I insist she is an artist mainly known in Latin America. in English there are not many references (she is a strong emerging artist in the English language scene) and that is why I am creating this page on wikipedia. I work doing workshops on women's work in sound and unfortunately there are very few references of these kind of works and artists on the Internet, mainly women working with sound in Latin America although they are recognized and well known in their countries and abroad. Thank you for your time and all your kind advice.Panz4 Troupé (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Panz4 Troupe - weak references can (and perhaps should) be removed so that the strong references are more visible. The references that do not mention her (if they are still in the article) should be removed. The references that are mere listings of performances can be removed if they are not essential to support a statement in the article. Where there are multiple reference for the same statement, it may be possible to reduce the number by selecting the "best" one. References in languages other than English are fine, so if there are stronger references in Spanish you can use them -- especially if they replace weaker references in English. Note that references to performances or works of hers do not support notability in the way that references ABOUT her do. So you should not overload the article with references to her performances, although some of those can go into the external links. The article is definitely improved! Good work! I've changed my !vote to "keep". LaMona (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:54, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Simonsen[edit]

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

Article is completely unsourced and does not appear to demonstrate notability. I've searched for sources, but all I can find is social media, bloggy things and sources that effectively just say what his job is and who he works for. I can't find any in-depth material that is actually about him. Mr Potto (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lots of very brief mentions due to the nature of his job but no depth of coverage. Fails WP:BIO Vrac (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim to notability in the article. Only ref in the article is a resume at one of his employers' website. No coverage to pass WP:GNG, no significance to pass WP:JOURNALIST. Kraxler (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is no need to wait 7 days after relisting per WP:RELIST, it's pretty clear that this should be deleted. kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kyo Jr Sigua[edit]

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

Speedily deleted and now recreated by a different account; this article is about an actor / singer with no coverage in reliable sources. Whpq (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability.Pincrete (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete borderline-A7. I've tagged it for WP:BLPROD as well, which means if this discussion is extended another week the article may be BLPPRODded away before this discussion ends. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Updated - see below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also User:Kyojr22 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)/MfD and User:Pokefair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)/MfD, both of which are up for deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no information about notability from the references or the external link (to Facebook). fds^Talk 05:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reset the clock on the WP:BLPROD tag so it expires on August 4. This re-listed AFD should be ready for closure on August 3. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:14, 31 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. Sandstein 13:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Har Dam Tayyar[edit]

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

Ultimately, this is an Afd that tests the limits of WP:TVSHOW in terms of how much notability we confer on a TV show for simply having been broadcast. Created by indef banned COI and sockpuppeteer Talentforfilm, the 20-minute episodes have already been nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power of the Sea, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying Tigers (TV Documentary), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sons of the Soil (2002 film). But I can find no reliable sources that significantly address the parent article, and WP:TVSHOW is expressly not a carte blanche for simply existing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There seem to be no RS to establish notability.Pincrete (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run-of-the-mill TV fodder, no lasting impact, no reviews. Web searches turn up youtube and dailymotion links... Kraxler (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I added the refs to the article. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Quest[edit]

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

No explanation of notability offered. Though the author seems notable, I'm not finding much for references to justify this title. Mikeblas (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Doris Lessing- There seems to be JUST enough in critical essays to justify the article, though perhaps a 'series' article would have made more sense.Pincrete (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Doris Lessing's page. If sources exist, they can be added there, until enough sources turn up to justify a stand-alone article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Doris Lessing's page until someone can develop it on its own. A search of World Cat finds this book was published in multiple languages in 2008, and became an ebook in 2014. Amazon notes that it was first published in 1970, but all the comments are from readers not reviewers. — Maile (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the first novel in a sequence of 5 ending with The Four-Gated City, which has a decent article. I would suggest that the article on the 5th book could be repurposed as an article on the whole set with this one merged in. But is anyone willing to organise that? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, speedy close, trout the nominator, their family, their offspring, their ancestors, their pets and/or livestock, all of their Facebook friends, all of their email contacts and all of the artists on their Spotify playlist. Dear God. Where to begin? Doris Lessing "seems notable"? Only one Nobel Prize in Lierature; I guess she's no better than marginal. We all know that the literary work of Nobelists garners little or no critical attention, as the eighty-odd pages of Google Scholar citations for this title so resoundingly demonstrates. Where is Qworty when you need him to purge Wikipedia of such unworthy doggerel?
You know, there is more reliably source-quality critical commentary out there on Martha Quest than there is on Jonny Quest, Seaquest DSV, and King's Quest combined, by a very wide and very healthy margin. The abysmal stupidity represented by proposal like this can only bring shame to Wikipedia. Deserved shame, it seems, given the lack of well-informed responses to it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree with The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) that this is a notable book (although we may all like some WP:TEA).Keep, meets WP:NBOOK. Google search reveals numerous reliable sources, academic papers etc. Here are some of them:

[25] Seeing Herself through Literature: Martha Quest’s Reading Habit in Doris Lessing’s The Children of Violence in The Criterion: An International Journal in English, Issue 12, February 2013, by Mohammad Kaosar Ahmed and Sultana Jahan - discusses the development of the main character through the series.

(site is on wiki blacklist)A Psychoanalytic-Feminist Reading of Martha’s “Battle” with Mrs. Quest in Doris Lessing’s Martha Quest by Mohammad Kaosar Ahmed from Journal of Arts and Humanities (JAH), Volume -3, No.-4, April, 2014, pages 32to39 - review of book concentrating on relationship between protaginist and her mother.

[26] Nostalgia for the Future: Remembrance of Things to Come in Doris Lessing’s Martha Quest by Frederick J. Solinger from ariel: A Review of International English Literature, Volume 45, Number 3, July 2014, pp. 75-99 (subscriber site, project muse - accessible by some wikieditors?)

[27] Doris Lessing: Book by Book Profile by Jessica Teisch - includes excerpts of book reviews from the New York Times and Library Journal.

The article could also be expanded to cover the character Martha Quest ie. 'Martha Quest is the main character and the title of the first book in the book series The Children of Violence by Nobel prize winner Doris Lessing.' Here are some of the resources available discussing the character: [28]-Martha's Odyssey: the Motif of the Journey in Doris Lessing's The Children of Violence by Lamia Tayeb University of Human and Social Sciences, Tunis, Tunisia, [29], Doris Lessing: The Poetics of Change by Gayle Greene isbn 9780472084333[30], Relationship Between Women and Knowledge in Lessing´s The Summer Before the Dark, Martha Quest and A Proper Marriage - Masters Thesis.Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Power and Rubber Supply, Inc.[edit]

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

Unremarkable company; does not seem to meet notability guidelines for businesses. Article only states that the company exists. I had CSD'd the page but it was removed by User:TheChaseJ which could be the same as User:PRSindustries but I can't prove it. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a difference in this page and the page [[31]]Motion Industries. TheChaseJ (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other things exist; I'm dealing with what's in front of me, though you're right, perhaps that should be deleted as well(though that page claims that firm is the largest in their field). Regarding this page, nothing notable or significant is indicated about it; please review the notability guidelines I link to above. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - No indication of notability.Pincrete (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches found nothing particularly good to suggest good notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Salt and burn, non notable company.Ireneshih (talk) 07:27, 30 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J. L. Verma[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about someone who may meet notability as a politician. Am unable to find anything to confirm notability though (possibly due to language barrier). Amortias (T)(C) 17:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not speak Hindi although when searching his name as झुन्नी लाल वर्मा which is his name in Hindi there seem to be relevant results but I am not sure. It would be very useful if we could get someone who speaks Hindi. He seems to be more notable as an author than as a politician though. Snood1205 (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is correct, then he passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of both a provincial legislature and a state assembly. postdlf (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep The author may have WP:COI. He has authored 2 more pages that are related to J L Verma and interlinked. One of the pages ~~is WP:CSD tagged~~ is now WP:CSD deleted. The article makes claims for which references are not given. But the subject may meet WP:NPOL.Sulabhvarshney (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN if correct. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article definitely needs a major rewrite and some actual reliable sourcing, but the claim of notability — member of a state legislature — is definitely there under WP:NPOL. However, it's important to be aware that there have been articles created which claimed that the topic served in a state or provincial or federal legislature, which actually turned out to be outright WP:HOAXes when somebody went looking for improved sources. So we don't keep such an article based on the claim that they served in a legislature — we keep it based on the sourcing that can be provided to verify the claim that they served in a legislature. So keep if a source can be located — our sources don't have to be in English, so if a Hindi speaker can help out then by all means go for it — but move to draftspace to allow time for further research if it can't. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment http://rajkamalprakashan.com/default/jmproducts/filter/index/?author=447 says सी.पी. एंड बरार विधानपरिषद के सदस्य आदि पदों को सुशोभित किया। which indicates that he was member of Legislative Council of Central Provinces and Berar. It does not indicate year in office. However there are no other sources, and the article is likely to remain in a biased voice as not much information is available to be added with references.Sulabhvarshney (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete unless sources can be found. I don't consider the publisher page an independent, reliable source. I think he was a member, thus notable, but there needs to be sources. There are also factual problems in the article such as "under Governor E. Raghvendra Rao." Only the British were governor's in the 1920's and 1930's during the time of the Central Provinces & of the Berar Assembly. Rao was a member of that assembly. Bgwhite (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very clear passes the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per JPLambert. Carrite (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J. L. Verma was MLC in Old CP and Berar and E. raghvendra Rao was Governor. At that time in British India this post of Governor used to exist, it is like present chief minister. Madhya Pradesh state assembly mentioned all his contributions in the proceedings of 27 August 1981 such as freedom movement, Saugor University, etc. mentioned. If required documental evidance can be provided. He was the founder of Damoh degree college and JL Verma Law college of Damoh about which is mentioned in wikipedia Damoh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verma.abby (talk • contribs) 14:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this source confirms his membership in the Legislative Council in 1936. this source says that Verma was elected in December 1933 unopposed to fill the vacancy in the LC caused by the death of G. S. Singhai, in the Damoh district non-Muhammadan rural constituency. Both sources spell "Jhunnilal" (one word). Kraxler (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Moving to Fardabad, Bangladesh. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fordabad[edit]

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

Fails to meet guideline Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like a real place to me (spelled "Fardabad" on g-maps). As per convention and WP:FIVEPILLARS, we include population centers. --Oakshade (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Fardabad; must the same place. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, that's Fardabad in Iran. This article is about Fordabad/Fardabad in Bangladesh. Merging would be like merging Montpelier, Louisiana to Montpellier.--Oakshade (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fordabad is a place in Bangladesh and Fardabad is a place in Iran. How must they be in the same place? Please refrain from voting if you cannot be bothered to look up the article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep. My ignorance. See, I don't know everything. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed from Comment) per WP:GEOLAND, "Populated, legally recognized places are typically considered notable" but we would need at least one source to confirm the spelling and the legal status of the place. "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG." If the place is not legally recognized we would also need sources to establish at least traces of notability. Currently the article is unsourced, and the Google map spells "Fardabad" (also in Bangladesh, not only in Iran) Kraxler (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the 2011 census of Bangla Desh, there is "Fardabad Union" (pop. 21,952) which contains a village "Fardabad" (pop. 10,381) located in the Bancharampur Upazila (the census spells "Banchharapur" (with double h), in Brahmanbaria District. Article should be moved to Fardabad, Bangla Desh, or Fardabad Union (article on the "town" with a list of villages. Kraxler (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The US' National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency's GEOnet Names Server lists "Faradābād" as the name for the village, so the article should probably be updated to reflect that. Still looking for legal status and other traces of notability. I think what will help the most is finding the name of the village in the Bengali language, as English-language sources would probably be in scarcity. Mz7 (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that is "Farhadabad" located in the Chittagong District, according to the census. Kraxler (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't know.~~ The GNS entry listed the coordinates 23° 44' 40" N, 090° 52' 38" E. Checking that in Google Maps, it fell right where the "Fardabad, Bangladesh" linked from Oakshade's comment above was. The database lists it as a "populated place". There are a few other entries for Fardabad that are indeed in Chittagong. There are no entries in the GNS database for "Fordabad", however. Mz7 (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC), struck out uncertainty at start - I initially misread your comment. Mz7 (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The census found by Kraxler appears to verify that the village is a legally recognized, populated place, and therefore is notable per WP:GEOLAND. Following closure, the page should be moved to Fardabad to align with the available sources. Mz7 (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND and move to Fardabad, Bangladesh to match spelling and distinguish it from the village in Iran.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson K. Gao[edit]

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

This was proposed for deletion (PRODded) by User:AndyTheGrump with rationale "Abysmal auto-hagiography. If an article is justified for this individual, it needs to be written from, scratch, according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as proper encyclopaedic content. There is nothing here worth saving." It was deprodded earlier today by its main author, User:Jkxgao. I think the prod rationale was spot on - if there's any notability here WP:TNT applies. Michig (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've tried asking the author/subject to provide references to demonstrate notability according to our criteria, but had no sensible reply. The only real claim to notability is as an academic, and I haven't been able to locate anything which suggests that he meets the WP:ACADEMIC criteria. It is possible that he meets it, but the article entirely fails to provide anything to demonstrate this amongst all the invalid Wikipedia citations, links to Amazon, Scribe, YouTube etc. This isn't the first AfD either - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson Gao which likewise closed as delete as lacking evidence of notability. If someone ever locates evidence that Gao does meet our notability criteria, an article would need writing from scratch, by an uninvolved contributor who understands Wikipedia policy, and what the purpose of an encyclopaedic biography is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I've worked on the article but needs more time to clean up.Sofiamar (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia notability policy - making a few trivial edits to an article does nothing to establish notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sofiamar has been blocked as a sockpuppet created to !vote in an unrelated AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God I read all of it. Ladies and gents, we are here to ascertain the subject's notability. I can understand someone writing a stub on someone marginally notable. However, I cannot imagine anyone writing a long in-depth piece unless (1) the person is really very notable or (2) they are so stuck up their own backsides that they think themselves important to be in an encyclopedia and that they are the only suitable author. Given the claims made about the subject are transparently hollow, I assume it is the latter. I really hope China isn't following India in terms of producing people who will pen their autobiography, using flowery hagriographic prose that would get them thrown out of a introductory creative writing class for being nearly unreadable. So Delete please. Le petit fromage (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete I can't believe you read it all! Bravo! It is very hard to figure out if this person meets WP:ACADEMICS due to the problems in the article, but I'm not seeing evidence of academic notability. It's a shame to remove this article based on all of the work that went into it. However, it has a serious number of problems. First, it uses WP in references, which is not appropriate. All other references are to the subject's own articles. Then, it goes way beyond the topic at hand with information about the person's interest in music, etc., which don't apply to notability as a scientist. I don't see any third-party references, but if we're looking at this with academic notability in mind that is not the key problem. However, I don't see anything here that would lead to notability as an academic, either. Also, note that the creator of the article is JKGAO. sigh LaMona (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's so much puffery here that it makes it very difficult to find any actual notability. At best it's a case for WP:TNT. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given the name of the editor who created the article it looks like it is an autobiography. 203.109.161.2 (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we can take that as read: though the fact that a caption to a photograph in the article (now removed) stated that was taken "in front of our house" would appear to be the clincher. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). The well-informed consensus is that BankBazaar has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, passing the general notability standard. An NPOV cleanup is recommended. There being no !votes in favor of deletion, save for the nom, I think this is safe for a NAC. North of Eden (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BankBazaar[edit]

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

The entire sourcing is routine funding announcements. There is nothing notable about the subject; fails WP:CORP. Article history suggests undisclosed paid placement on Wikipedia. Brianhe (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been able to find some sources. The Amazon connection (Amazon owns maybe 5% of them) made it into the Times of India, the Economic Times, and TechCrunch. They're being profiled as a startup on the way up. They probably pass WP:CORP. The promotional material in the article needs some trimming, though. That's the main COI problem. John Nagle (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep standard searches reveal enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Some examples[32] [33] [34] [35]. Article needs a NPOV cleanup, especially the lede. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 29 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 per G5. Already deleted by User:Ponyo. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Breakers: The Second Coming[edit]

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

The film has not begun production, fails WP:NFF. Koala15 (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:NFF. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFF. Article can always be resurrected when production begins. MarnetteD|Talk 04:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this new article per being TOO SOON and failing WP:NFF. While the page after page of sources from 2014 might be used to expand some at director Jonas Åkerlund and at Spring Breakers#Sequel, this one can always be undeleted or recreated if or when we have confirmation of filming. Okay also with it being returned to its author until ready. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 29 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 per G5. Already deleted by User:Ponyo (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Future Earth (TV series)[edit]

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

The series was announced, but never entered production. Koala15 (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A show that never entered production has a hard time meeting WP:GNG. MarnetteD|Talk 04:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 29 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. Davewild (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lia Chang[edit]

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

Promotion for a non-notable photographer. It's hard to find any non-trivial third part coverage about her. damiens.rf 15:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure promotion that is spreading to other articles. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person appears to me to be a legitimate journalist and photographer. The Library of Congress created a collection for her photographs. This seems to be a considerable bio article with lots of references to major news sources, although I agree that it is badly under-referenced and needs many more, as well as more clean-up. The mere assertions above in this nomination are not evidence. What is the evidence here? -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers have your tried to find major news sources that are actually about her? I spent about a half hour looking when I made my first over this article the other day and came up with little. I am not sure if this fails NOTABILITY yet, but neither did I find "lots of references to major news sources". Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I looked around for like 20 seconds and found that she is the subject of her own chapter in this book. She is favorably reviewed here in The New York Times, among several other high-quality sources already shown in the article. Numerous photos of hers have appeared in such major publications as The Wall Street Journal. So, my initial impression is that this AfD has basically been made recklessly, as have the massive deletions by several users to sources written by this journalist. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lia Chang writing about herself is not independent of her. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable, as the sources quoted by Ssilvers above demonstrates. Jack1956 (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Ssilvers. If he has already found these sources, I am sure they will be others around too. – SchroCat (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are those (third-part, indepent) sources??? Where is the non-trivial coverage about her? --damiens.rf 13:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unquestionably notable, since she has works in the permanent collection of major museums, which is the basic criterion for creative artists. The NYT review of her book confirms it, and it and the other reviews are independent sources. . The article very obviously needs considerable improvement, primarily by cutting--articles written as promotionally as this trend to attract unfavorable attention,especially if the main WP-relevant notability is not clearly stated in the beginning. To improve the article, I will remove some of the obvious minor material so it focusses on the notability. (If she were less notable I would have considered G11,but for someone clearly important I prefer to rewrite; if the rewriting arouses opposition, then G11 is in order because it cannot be fixed by normal editing. For borderline importance & borderline promotionalism combined, I go here.) DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP. reddogsix (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Ohle[edit]

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

Non-notable writer lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - I missed the references. reddogsix (talk) 13:52, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D. K. Issar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Seems to be just a run of the mill journalist etc. Note: I've just cleaned out a load of rubbish that at first glance appeared to be sourced but in fact was not. Note also that the article creator bears the same name as the subject's son, so this is quite likely a vanity piece. Sitush (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Issar may well be a fine journalist, but my searches fail to produce secondary sources to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo advert, no claim to notability in the article, Wikipedia is WP:NOTFACEBOOK Kraxler (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elwood Cruz[edit]

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

The lack of references or sources that provide notability is why I am nominating this. The only sources I could find were mentions of him (as any news anchor would be). I also could not find sources for the background information about him. Jcmcc (Talk) 13:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's a content problem not a notability issue. Guy is pretty well known and quite notable in Puerto Rico. Here are two biographies from Univision: [36] [37] and here are several articles exclusively about him: [38] [39] [40] [41] —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As user:Ahnoneemoos points out, there are several readily available independent sources that provide in-depth coverage and clearly show notability, as is typical for TV personalities. I advise user:Jcmcc450 to withdraw this and any similar nominations before wasting more time. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:11, 29 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. Davewild (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014-15 Kazakhstani Futsal First Division[edit]

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

Per WP:NSEASONS, this is not a top professional league. Fenix down (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Creator of the article did not show notability despite being asked to do so via the article's talk page. Article seems to serve the purpose of a stats dump. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:00, 29 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. —SpacemanSpiff 12:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baskaran krishnan[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Promotional article probably written by subject. Takiing this straight to AfD since some people might consider that there is a claim to notability there TheLongTone (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searched. Found nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unambiguous SPA advertising. Vague sourcing. Violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTYELLOW. A search for sources (disclaimer: in English only) found no significant coverage. Basically the entire article is written from the topic's point of view. The main bold claim for notability "In 1985 he invented the new system in Indian Astrology" is rather unlikely and would need a high-quality source for verification. GermanJoe (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7. Jenks24 (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles Of Hope[edit]

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

Non-notable books by non-notable author. This is essentially a promotional article written, in all probability, by the author. TheLongTone (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Not notable author or works and reads like a promotion piece. Kierzek (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, self-published. There's at least one paperback available from Amazon, but "Palace Park Press" is an imprint used by Acorn self-publishing services. Mr Potto (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK, google search brings up nothing, just some not reliable sites, appears to be a bit of WP:PROMO by author or someone closely associated.Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 28 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. Davewild (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Chigozie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Player, 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.

In the previous AfD, there was suggestion that sources indicated full professionalism in the Bangladesh top league. However, additional discussion took place here and no consensus was reached.

Bangladesh remains absent from the WP:FPL listing, so the original concerns still stand. Fenix down (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As nominator of the original AfD. As is spelled out in the nomination, my concerns from a year ago still stand. The claim that he has played in a fully professional league remains unverified, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT, and he has still not received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per as discussion from 1st nomination. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - on what grounds? the original discussion suggested Bangladesh was FPL, there is no consensus that that is actually the case from a wider discussion post that AfD. Fenix down (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the three players selected to be Naturalized to play for Bangladesh National Team. The three would be the first naturalized players to play for Bangladesh national Team. Source:Salahuddin defends naturalisation Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and if they end up playing a full FIFA internationaal then they will be notable per WP:NFOOTY. At the moment though to attempt to support notability based on this possible outcome is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Fenix down (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As article fails WP:NFOOTBALL (as not played in WP:FPL) and also fails WP:GNG. Qed237 (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and there will be No naturalization (published one day after the abovementioned link). Otherwise, web searches turn up only WP:ROUTINE weekly mentions. Kraxler (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emeka Darlington[edit]

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

Player, 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.

In the previous AfD, there was suggestion that sources indicated full professionalism in the Bangladesh top league. However, additional discussion took place here and no consensus was reached.

Bangladesh remains absent from the WP:FPL listing, so the original concerns still stand. Fenix down (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As nominator of the original AfD. As is spelled out in the nomination, my concerns from a year ago still stand. The claim that he has played in a fully professional league remains unverified, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT, and he has still not received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plays in Bangladesh Premier League (football), which would meet the notability criteria. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please support that claim with reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep, Reason and Sources : Run By Bangladesh Football Federation with codified rules involving transaction, doping etc. "The Bangladesh Football Federation (Bengali: বাংলাদেশ ফুটবল ফেডারেশন) is the governing body of football in Bangladesh, controlling the Bangladesh national football team. It was founded in 1972, and has been a member of FIFA and the Asian Football Confederation since 1974." Source: History BFF BANGLADESH FOOTBALL FEDERATION Bangladesh Premier League (football) matches take place in National Stadiums, have foreign coaches. In the news:"Bangladesh Football Federation (BFF), in its bid to increase the number of matches in the professional football league, has proposed a third phase for the Bangladesh Premier League in the upcoming season." and "The recommendations of the BFF’s Emergency Committee will be passed on to the Professional League Committee and if it is approved there, it will be sent to the executive committee to make it a rule." Members of the national team participate in the League including the captain of the National Team. 70000$ sponsorship deal. Is placed in the Bangladesh National league category by FIFA. Clubs have played in the International Club Matches such as the AFC Cup.source Described in the news as "professional football league" and "country's top league" with underperforming clubs facing demotions. Source Has 11 teams and about 25000$ to each club as as appearance fee.Source Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Changing Vote.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not really sure what is attempting to be achieved here, none of the sources presented above add any weight to the notion of a "fully" professional league:

Source 1 - Can't see anything in the regulations regaridng full professionalism,nothing in section four of the regulations makes any comment about a minimum salary for example.
Source 2 - Makes no mention of professioanlism at all, therefore not relevant to this discussion.
Source 3 - This is jusy the national associations FIFA page. Makes no mention of professionalism at all, therefore not relevant to this discussion.
Source 4 - The presence of foreign coaches does not indicate full professionalism and there is no reason why it should. Makes no mention of professionalism at all, therefore not relevant to this discussion.
Source 5 - Mentions professionalism, and no one here on in earlier conversations is doubting there is at least a degree of professionalism, but nothing to support fullprofessionalism. Comments such as After plenty of discussion, the BFF stuck to its previous plans of keeping the BPL a ten team affair – rejecting discussion over the last few days to increase the number to 14. The decision was based largely on the assessment that 14 teams would not be able to maintain the basic standard, due to a scarcity of quality players suggest the league is not fully pro as a league which was would be more likely to attract players of sufficient quality.
Sourcre 6 - A routine match report. Makes no mention of professionalism at all, therefore not relevant to this discussion.
Source 7 - Unclear how a $70000 sponsorship deal is meant to confirm full professionalism for the league. Almost every countries' top league will have some level of sponsorship and some cash prize available which makes them professional to a degree. This does not mean they are fully professional.
Source 8 - This is just the league's page on FIFA's website. Makes no mention of professionalism at all, therefore not relevant to this discussion. All leagues, regardless of their level of professionalism have these pages.
Source 9 - Makes no mention of professionalism at all, therefore not relevant to this discussion. There is no "full professionalism" requirement of the AFC Cup.
Source 10 - Makes no mention of professioanlism at all, therefore not relevant to this discussion. Promotion and relegation exists at all levels of football, amateur or professional.
Source 11 - Mentions payment of sponsorship money to clubs, but makes no mention of professionalism at all, therefore not relevant to this discussion. Unclear how such a small payment could support the whole of a playing squad (excluding non-playing staff). Fenix down (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Bangladesh Premier League is not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. A single AfD is not the place to discuss inclusion of any league, that should be done at the project page. In the meanwhile, this player fails WP:NFOOTY, and coverage is rather WP:ROUTINE (match reports with trivial mentions), so he fails also WP:GNG. In case the Bangladesh Premier League is added to the list of FPL, the article may be re-created, but in the meanwhile we should abide by the guideline. Guidelines are intended to save time and effort, and represent current consensus. It's not helpful to try to squeeze one's favorite subject's into Wikipedia by refusing to accept the guidelines and trying to bury one's opponents under WP:WALLS. Kraxler (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Art[edit]

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

Eye-wateringly trivial unsourced essay. WP:NOTDICT. TheLongTone (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivial, not notable stub. Kierzek (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research (of a kind) that merely describes something, vaguely. The term "wall art" exists to a certain extent but it is not a concept in and of itself. Most flat art is displayed on walls. I don't believe an article is required to explain that. freshacconci talk to me 18:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definetely an original research. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous comment I'm tempted to create a piece to hang at the very top of a wall and call it Cornice Art. Any takers?TheLongTone (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article seems like an essay full of original research, and the title cannot be accurately redirect anyways due to it being rather ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 15:39, 29 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. Davewild (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eliana Guercio[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, girlfriend of goalkeeper Sergio Romero is not enough... JMHamo (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, weak association only. Kierzek (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Also, not really in English. automatic machine translation? This article appears to exist in 2 other languages. Any polyglots wanna take a look?

And a bit OT, but hey: What's a quick way to tell if Bodega Riglos, by the same editor, is just a machine translation of es:Bodega Riglos? I think the translate tools would help but I've never used 'em. Want to give the user the benefit of the doubt... --Elvey^(t•c) 22:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it's not a raw machine translation. Possibly the author used the machine translation as a starting point (the layout is exactly the same) and then made some little adjustments, letting transpire a certain deficient knowledge of English grammar. Kraxler (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTINHERITED. Her article has been deleted 6 times from es.wikipedia for lack of notability, spam, unencyclopedic, etc...Vrac (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (Non-admin Closure) On the balance, it seems to me that those !voting "keep" have demonstrated notability with respect to NVG and GNG, by finding sufficient reliable secondary coverage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry Dash[edit]

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

Fails WP:NVG and WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has significant coverage in the form of dedicated reviews from reliable sources: 148apps, Softpedia. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry Salvidrim, I'm not feeling you. First, I'm not convinced of the reliability of those two you cite (can't find an editorial policy or an editorial board for 148apps, and Softpedia is too much a download site which makes me doubt their credibility. Either way, two reviews of a piece of software don't, for me, add up to notability. For a 1.99 app I need to see more reliable, more in-depth--in short, much more than what we get here, or almost every app in the world deserves an encyclopedic article. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand your position, I just want to point out that the reliability and worth of 148apps has been established through consensus; as for Softpedia, I re-read the recent discussions and consensus also seemed to be leaning that way. All the discussions are linked to in the checklist at the bottom of WP:VG/S. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found these: [42], [43], [44], [45]. The last one listed should easily prove notability, if it's the No#1 app on the App Store. Ana r chyte 05:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That might well change this. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It does meet the notability guidelines. There are enough sources to prove notability, altrough not currently cited in the article. --TL22 (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known game, has a large enough community to be considered notable. - AwesoMan3000 (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either or As it stands, I'd say Delete because of the lack of referencing in it, and also per WP:NOTHOWTO. Far too much detail. If it's shown reliably (and I would reject Softpedia there) to be notable, then Keep with a rewrite required (involving pruning). Peridon (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tomwsulcer makes a reasonable argument on the keep side, but didn't gain much support. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Wicky[edit]

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

Rampant puffery that fails GNG & PORNBIO. If judged to pass needs a decent dose of WP:TNT Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable, she was shooting for Playboy. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 16:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WASSHOOTINGFORPLAYBOY is unfortunately not a notability criteria, and is an unsourced claim to boot. Tarc (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication or assertion of notability, does not meet pornbio or WP:N. Tarc (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seems to receive extensive coverage from Czech press.[46] No idea about the reliability of those sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing comes close to passing pornographic actors requirements and there is also a severe lack of reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I'm not a big fan of porn stars in Wikipedia, there are references such as in-depth treatment here and here and here and here and here. Meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain the nature of the sites you have cited and how they meet RS? What biograophical data do they offer about the subject? Super.CZ has no byline and SIP looks really brief and again byline not clear. I'd be reluctant to accept without more detail of the nature of the site and how they meet RS. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are Czech porn-industry related magazines and newspapers who clearly think Angel Wicky is news, whatever that means. I doubt these publications rise to the level of The Guardian or the New York Times in terms of sourcing, editorial review and such, but at the same time, it seems fairly clear to me that in the Czech porn world, AW is a big deal, although my personal sense is that I would prefer this kind of stuff not be in Wikipedia, as I said, but that is my view, and I'm just trying to go by the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - so am I which is why i asked you how they meet RS. Specifically fact checking and reliability. If they are the czech eqivilent of Razzle then we cant use them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - SIP is a Czech entertainment-lifestyle magazine, translated here, which almost certainly does not have the journalistic standards of The Guardian or the New York Times but it does what it does -- covers celebrity news, lifestyle information, sex and relationships. It has high production values (colorful images, links) and is current-oriented, meaning it probably has a wide circulation among Czech-speaking people, that is, if it printed untruths or made up stories, it would lose readers. It has a newsroom and an editor in chief named Michal Broz. What I am saying is that Angel Wicky gets sufficient exposure in this magazine, with wide circulation, with editors and reporters and writers and advertisers, that it qualifies (in my view) as a reliable source although I realize that it is unfamiliar to most of us living in the western world.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Something like Hello then? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes something along those lines. Here's a translated home page of another magazine called topky which, like you say, appears similar to Hello magazine -- it is that type of magazine, as you rightly point out. So if people consider magazines like Hello to be substandard for Wikipedia, then they'll probably vote Delete, or if they allow it, then a case could be made for Keep. Views on this can vary. For me, in the pop culture cruft world of entertainment and celebrities and gossip and crap, this is standard fare, sourcing wise, probably okay for crufty subjects like a porn star, but definitely not suitable for a subject like the health effects of breast implants.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        The rampant puffery in this article is precisely why I would not personally accept a publication like this as a RS. Titillation is clearly more important that accuracy and a BLP deserves better. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tomwsulcer. I don't believe a source becomes unreliable because they cover topics like porn even if other countries consider those topics sensationalistic. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PORNBIO which was the original reason (under the earlier wording of the guideline) that this article was created, and kept at the time. I would accept the sources found by Tomwsulcer as collateral for somebody with a very slim pass of any other guideline, but on their own these sources can not establish notability under WP:GNG. Tabloid magazines are not independent enough from porn stars and Playboy playmates. It would indeed require multiple stories in the Czech Republics largest mainstream metro newspapers (comparable to the New York Times or the Guardian as pointed out above), or something from the big TV stations, to clear GNG, not necessarily for their reliability (if I see bare breasts, I believe that they are there) but for the breadth of their audience and their choice of what they publish. Show me some in-depth story in, let's say Právo, and I'll have a look. Kraxler (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clickbait tabloidery/"celebrity journalism" is no substitute for reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liliane Tiger[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG & PORNBIO Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* keep More than 150 Actress credits plus more than 20 achieve footages, I think makes her notable. Katerina dunaway (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC) — Katerina dunaway (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Sofiamar (talk • contribs). [reply]

Porn films are cranked out at a high rate. Performing in X number of porn films was explicitly excluded from the porn actor notability guideline for just that reason. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only award nominations. Not finding significant reliable source coverage to pass GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple noms do not qualify for WP:PORNBIO, other sources are just nominee announcements and non-reliable source Adult Video News junk. Tarc (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many nominations to awards, 13 x interwiki, notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 08:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Porn award nominations don't count toward notability. Neither does the existence of other language Wikipedia pages. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 29 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. Davewild (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nessa Devil[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO & GNG, the hailing by the Argentinian press as a new porn superstar are clearly too hyperbolic to count as RS Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A anomalous outbreak of tabloidery cannot outweigh the lack of genuinely reliable sources. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Silver[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO with nominations only and clearly falls far short of GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My sweeps of international media and entertainment-related media did not reveal sufficient sources to meet the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 16:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin; discard the above entry per WP:ITSNOTABLE, please. Tarc (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well known, many nominations to awards, 15 x interwiki - notable. Tarc, stop trolling votes by other users. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 08:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is a basis to judge notability. At least try to pretend there is some guideline behind your vote. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Subtropical, you have evaded this question in the past but perhaps this time you'll try to answer it. Your claim of "many nominations to awards" is a reference to a now-deleted criteria of WP:PORNBIO. Why do you keep basing AfD votes on criteria that are no longer valid? You are not being "trolled", you are being challenged. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PORNBIO - these are only some criteria that should be taken into account, they are not compulsory to delete articles, even if the article does not meet WP:PORNBIO, there may be other arguments for leaving article. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is plain ol' WP:N, which the subject fails to meet as well as there appear to be no reliable, secondary sources that cover the subject in-depth. It's like what Donald Rumsfeld would say if he were a Wikipedian; "we judge notability by the guidelines that we have, not the guidelines that we wish we had". Tarc (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To remove articles - common sense (normal and this in Wikipedia:Common sense) is needed. Mass issuing of articles to remove because they do not meet the requirements of WP:PORNBIO, not only is it destructive action but even cries out for vengeance from heaven. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vengeance from heaven? Really? Articles without significant RS coverage are generally not notable. Porn biographies without sufficient RS acknowledgements of contributions to porn are not notable. The revised PORNBIO consensus states this. Yes, a purge was bound to happen, but most of these articles are not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Gene93k and Tarc and others thinking tropically or supertropically.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lulz, "vengeance from heaven". Screen-capping this for posterity. And yes, articles have to meet certain criteria to remain in the project, otherwise we're just a free-for-all webhost. 15:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Tarc (talk)

According to the "certain criteria" in en.Wikipedia, author who born in 1992 in Somalia and wrote two books with poems (20 pages per book, the number of copies - irrelevant, even ten copies) are notable and Stacy Silver who well known in many countries in the world and played in 234 films and have seven award's nominations are not notable - it is absurd. No matter how stupid are some consensuses or criteria, if I think that the person is encyclopedic, I vote for keep. I have a right to this. This is the crux of the matter. I think that this person is encyclopedic, I have the right to vote and please respect my opinion even if you do not agree with it. Simply. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple nominations is no longer a criteria of WP:PORNBIO, Fail #1. Fail #2,sources cited are announcements of aid nominations, i.e. press releases which are invalidated per WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If only notability could be passed on looks eh!, Anyway as lovely as she is - she unfortunately, sadly and regrettably fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only award nominations. Lacks significant reliable source coverage to satisfy GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per, in particular, Tarc's accurate analysis and with an eye toward observing the threated "vengeance from heaven". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dasha (actress)[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO & GNG - source is primary - an interview - and therefore does not count and non-speaking parts in music videos surely cannot cut the mustard for PORNBIO#3 Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 16:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin; discard the above entry per WP:ITSNOTABLE, please. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject's interviews in non-notable/unreliable sources do not satisfy WP:N. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Markéta Bělonohá[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails PORNBIO & GNG Only claims to fame are being the subject of a book of artistic nudes - which surely cannot count for notability otherwise every model who had a spread in a glossy magazine would have an article. The other claim is performing in a film called Deep Gold but according to IMDB she isn't a lead performer meaning that PORMBIO#3 doesn't kick in. In short, not suitable for an article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is no reason to comment about meeting or not meeting WP:PORNBIO for a subject who is not a pornographic actor but "a glamour model and actress". The relevant guideline is WP:ENT, not PORNBIO. Cavarrone 18:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:PORNBIO and WP:ENT - well, web searches actually turn up hundred thousands of google hits, mostly to pornsites where strip videos of her can be seen. On the other side, the only link in "news" is the ref listed in the article (blesk.cz) which talks about her Playboy pictures. The other refs are her own website and dead links. Kraxler (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Reine-Adelaïde[edit]

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

Declined speedy. However, player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league, only non-notable pre-season friendly competitions. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Qed237 (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Some friendly games and being praised by Arsene Wenger are all very well but they don't make you notable. If he's as good as he is painted his time will come - but not yet.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. NextGenSam619^t@lk 04:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He was part of the French squad (Under-17) which won the finals of 2015 UEFA European Under-17 Championship in Bulgaria. --34 super héros (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTBALL explicitly excludes youth football as source of notability: Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some reliable sources (WP:GNG) : - (in French) Lens : Reine-Adelaide graine de star (Mercato 365).- Arsenal's 17-year-old wonderkid Jeff Reine-Adelaide ready for his big break (Telegraph). - Theo Walcott backs 'very talented' Jeff Reine-Adelaide for Arsenal success (ESPN FC). - Jeff Reine-Adelaide is at the best club to develop his ability, insists Arsenal’s Theo Walcott (Metro). - Profile (Soccerway). --34 super héros (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments on the sources provided

Lens : Reine-Adelaide graine de star - Not significant coverage, literally one paragraph on the player.
Arsenal's 17-year-old wonderkid Jeff Reine-Adelaide ready for his big break - Actually a lengthy article on the player. IMO not enough on its own, but if more could be found like this...
Jeff Reine-Adelaide is at the best club to develop his ability, insists Arsenal’s Theo Walcott - An article that is essentially repeated quotes from one player at a club noting the promise of a colleague is hardly reliable sourcing, he's not going to the press and say that the new kid they signed is rubbish!
Theo Walcott backs 'very talented' Jeff Reine-Adelaide for Arsenal success - Same as the previous comment.
Profile - Soccerway profile means nothing in itself, only confirms he does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 11:08, 31 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. Consensus for deletion is quite clear here.. Davewild (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enoch Barwuah[edit]

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

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. References provided indicate coverage as a result of being Mario Balotelli's brother. As notability is not inherited, these do not support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As nominator says, this BLP does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL (not played in WP:FPL) and he does not pass WP:GNG either. Qed237 (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not-notable footballer. Kante4 (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not notable. --Dweller (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very non-notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL and notability is not inherited.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:56, 29 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. Davewild (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bear with me (video game)[edit]

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

Does not pass the video games notability guidelines. Ana r chyte 08:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I moved this to Draft:Bear With Me with the intention that he would work on it there. This game hasn't even released yet and hasn't received the coverage necessary to really pass notability guidelines. I say that this mainspace article should be deleted (since it's identical to the draft version) and the entry salted to prevent re-creation prior to the article's acceptance via AfC, as they've also tried to create this at Bear with me (where I first discovered it) and they tried to re-create it there rather than work on the draftspace copy as I requested. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is salted, Tokyogirl79, doesn't that mean only admins will be able to move the AfC from draft to mainspace? How would it work? Ana r chyte 12:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly that - whomever accepts the article will have to get an admin to unsalt the page to ensure that it isn't accepted too soon. Mostly I want this as a deterrent for the article creator (although AfC does tend to be a little too lenient sometimes), as he's already shown that he'd be likely to try to re-create the article if it's left unsalted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Way way too soon as it is not scheduled for release until later this year. Notability cannot exists for a game that does not exist. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that this is not notable I am unsure what you mean by a game that does not exists. if you mean games that are not yet released I strongly disagree since there is nothing in WP:N that even remotely states that unrelated media can't be notable. For example, while neither Super Mario Maker or Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice are yet to be released any attempt to delete them By claiming that the don't exist would fail miserably. if I misread that and does not exist meant something else please disregard.--76.65.42.44 (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon for an article. All I see on Google searches is social media. If this is being recreated, then I'd endorse salting the title. Unreleased products can be notable, but it takes press attention, and this typically doesn't happen outside of big budget, high profile works. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had too few hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. ([47][48] are fine for after it gets a few reviews) There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please {{ping}} me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 05:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At the moment it seems to fail WP:GNG. I can only find one recent article [49] since its announcement on SE Collective. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Friendbase[edit]

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

Not apparent notability, although in these cases I'm a little leery to jump to csd. Lets see what the community has to say. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yep, not seeing any hits bigger than regular listings. And the refs currently on the page are largely either non-independent or unreliable. No significant coverage. – czar 17:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Mali[edit]

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

So called cyber-law-expert surely lacks WP:GNG, especially for being "expert". Most newspaper article are just passing mentions of him being the lawyer in some case. Other sources used in the article are self-published Linkedin and Facebook links. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It looks like you have not seen the media coverage as the award given to Prashant Mali. National Indian Bar Association is one of the most prestigious lawyers organisation and has awarded him for his contributions in cyber law. He has handled India's first Cyber Morphing and Identity Theft Case. Check out his facebook page to known that 48 thousand peoples likes his page and which means he is popular as well. Prashant Mali is an advocate considered to be the only cyber law expert in India. he holds a 13 episodes series on DD Sakhi Sahyadri. Apart from that, he has handled the most biggest cyber cases including Amir Khan, Poonam Pandey and Sunny Leone. Thereby, it is obvious that the deletion of such profile will result in the loss to Wikipedia and us. Also, Improved the referencing and removed some social media links according to your guidelines. Kindly considered to remove the article from Afd page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Bhuwnesh.joshi2014 (talk • contribs) 12:24, July 27, 2015

Handling first case^{[citation needed]} doesn't make him notable. Its just that he luckily happened to do that. Also fighting cases on behalf of celebrities doesn't make him notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED. If you say he is "expert" am sure many critics have written about him. Don't quote us 1-2 lines from newspapers and don't quote us his own quotes printed in newspapers. Bar Association presenting some award is just sort of in-house award ceremony. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Sir, according to you a lawyer who has authored a best selling book on cyber law "Cyber Law & Cyber Crimes" which has been forwarded by Justice Rajesh Tandon EX-Chairman Cyber Regulations Appellate Tribunal of India is not a cyber law expert. Also, refer to the following links for references : ^[1]^[2]^[3]. A Person who hosted a 13 episodes series on cyber law and have presented his research paper on Oxford university on behalf on India. He also is the first lawyer from india to be interviewed by BBC World News and featured interview in Bloomberg in which he exposed the threats in credit cards ^[4]. If you don't knows about Indian Bar Association, be sure to research about it. I will suggest you to find about cyber lawyers in India.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Bhuwnesh.joshi2014 (talk • contribs) 20:08, July 27, 2015

Note: I have struck your second !vote. Each contributor should only !vote once; additional discussion should not contain repeated !votes. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Online bank fraud victim awarded Rs 18L".
^ "6 banks, telecom firm to pay for credit card frauds".
^ "Unliken Security Innovation Conference".
^ "Exposed: The Demo of card cloning and how to avoid the card cloning by Prashant Mali".

Well! Looking at your contributions that have been creating this one article and the other one Rakshit Tandon, both being "IT experts" its quite clear that you are here for WP:PAY or at least with WP:COI and my experience says that its not worth educating such editors. So I will let other editors opine here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sir, First of all I have keen interest in cyber that's why my both articles are regarding IT experts. I don't know any of these person as well as have not recieved WP:PAY and am not from their cities as well. I just want to improve Wikipedia and that's the reason I try to write some articles. However, it depends on administrators like you whether the article should stay on Wikipedia or not. It doesn't matter if the article stays on Wikipedia or not, but I just want you to research about cyber law experts in India so that your opinion will be good. Also, for your information there is a C4 Conference at Mumbai Today, Where many of the Cyber Experts are attending do check the list of speakers and you will understand. Rest I will leave it to judgmental skills of administrators like you and know that what you will do will be the best for Wikipedia which I and you both want..— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Bhuwnesh.joshi2014 (talk • contribs) 15:59, July 28, 2015

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly a case of reference padding by using templates to mask Facebook pages, event brochures and others. While the person has been quoted by a few media agencies, that's all there is to it. There's no significant coverage about him, either within the article or for finding online -- something that should be possible for a cyberspace expert. This is an example of the quality of references available. —SpacemanSpiff 06:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See these links. Much of this article could be excised, but the fellow is definitely Notable in his country. No question about it. Tag it for improvement, but retain it, though it may end up being much shorter than it is now. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With those links we can start a page on Wikiquotes which would also be deleted eventually. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the advice by BeenAroundAWhile, User:SpacemanSpiff and User:Dharmadhyaksha, updated the article by removing weak references and adding new references. Requesting nominators and moderators to re-check it and if proper, remove the nomination from AfD.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuwnesh.joshi2014 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, here you say you are not related to both the subjects of the articles, Mali and Tandon, and then you upload images of them both as "own work". So which of the two is a lie? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I have downloaded the image of prashant mali from his facebook page. And just uploaded the image to wikimedia. What is wrong with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuwnesh.joshi2014 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i just found out that it is illegal to upload photos from the internet to wikipedia. Removed it. Please guide if there is anything more wrong with the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuwnesh.joshi2014 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Request User:Dharmadhyaksha to kindly withdraw the nomination as the references are improved, references from social networking sites are removed and the article now contains well referenced content. Looking forward to your response. Thanks for Improving the article. Bhuwnesh.joshi2014 (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed really, there's an array of quotes by him, that's about it, no significant coverage about him from reliable sources. —SpacemanSpiff 14:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mali is one of the leading cyber lawyer in the country. Multiple media sources have quoted him and mentioned him as an "expert". Check the news reports [50]. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 10:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination and @SpacemanSpiff:. This could a reason to attract more clients in business. In India there are thousands of well known lawyers and most of "em are expert in some or other fields, this does not makes them notable. Also, In India, the media keeps an eye on sensitive matters specially those have involvement of Supreme Court. In fact most of online published news articles about him is talking of one of the event in which he raised an question and gave suggestion about dealing with cyber laws which again could be the case of being notable for the single event.— — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request User:Cutest Penguin to go through the article and check out the quality of references as the article is improved by me and User:Dharmadhyaksha, removing weak references and adding quality references. Thanking You. Bhuwnesh.joshi2014 (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one is adding "quality" references on this "expert" as there exists none. News reports seems to be calling him "expert" like the proverb "In the land of the blind, a one-eyed man is the king". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per the nominators point regarding WP:GNG, It can be easily sorted out by checking the news reports [51]. Also, the article is highly improved by removing weak references and self published social media links. This thereby proves that all point laid by the nominator has been covered and improved. If the article needs some more references, the article must be tag for improvement, but it must be retained. Also, the nominator has worked to improve the article which suggests that the notability of the article is there. Bhuwnesh.joshi2014 (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No! You are not the authority to infer on my actions. I have cleaned the article only to show how hollow it is and has no notability. The article still has yellow-page listings of places the subject has been to; but am tired of cleaning it further. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks notability. The sources used don't help with GNG. One of the sources, Tennews.in is not even a reliable source. The article as such seems more like a fluff piece that cannot be fixed. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ten News is a reliable news source has been referred by many wikipedia articles many time including National Capital Region, also by searching on google you will probably know about the notability of the person. Do research thoroughly before commenting. Do check google news or scholar which are reliable source about him and you will definitely find information about him. Bhuwnesh.joshi2014 (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would do you good to learn to be civil and not tell people with multiple DYKs and GAs to 'do research'. ----Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The person lacks notability. Dr. Dinesh Karia^{(Talk) (contribs)}

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

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

The result was redirect to John LeCompt#Mourningside. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mourningside[edit]

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

While it has two somewhat notable members, it fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and MUSBIO sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 11:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John LeCompt#Mourningside where it is already covered. An article on a band with only one notable member would at least be worth a merge/redirect to the article on that person. Cases like this never really need to come to AfD unless attempts to redirect are reverted. --Michig (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:31, 28 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. The FAA is indisputably a RS and no OR has been identified. If the notability of the article remains under question following expansion, it can then be renominated. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coyle Field[edit]

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

Not Notable. No Reliable sources. Original research. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - wow, seriously you jumped on the article on barely three hours after I created it in the middle of the night?!?!?!? Keep, there's the FAA source (can anyone say reliable source independent of the subject???) also a few more I didn't have the chance to add in yet because the article WAS JUST EFFING CREATED. This article will comply for inclusion based on WP:GNG and WP:NGEO when given more than a few hours in the middle of the night to grow, but thanks anyway for trying to club a baby seal. JackTheVicar (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dont see how the FAA site is not considered to be reliable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:12, 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflex–Andover Airport[edit]

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

Not Notable. No Reliable sources. Original research. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - This article complies for inclusion based on WP:GNG WP:NGEO, and nice to think that an FAA document--A US government record--isn't considered a reliable source. If you scratched the surface instead of jumping the gun (a journalist even an exjournalist would never...), you would see in my sandbox other New Jersey Forest Fire Service articles (including one on NJFFS almost prepped for namespace), so do you not think I would be developing this? And just where is the original research? JackTheVicar (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dont see why these airport articles keep getting nominated. There are reliable sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No Reliable sources? Original research? Did the nominator read the article and look elsewhere for sources as required by WP:BEFORE? There's more than enough here and available online to support notability. Alansohn (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you've "BeenAroundAWhile", you should know better. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable sources definitely exist and are used as references. Ownership by the NJ forest fire service and the existence of a flight academy based out of 12N satisfy WP:AIRPORT's notability guidelines. "Pepper" @ 00:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems BeenAroundAWhile was doing a little original research of their own to conclude no reliable sources exist, demonstrating a reason why we have WP:NOR.--Oakshade (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is notable per notability guidelines, its sources are reliable government documents from the State of New Jersey and the Federal Aviation Administration, and has contained WP:NOR since the day I created the article. This trial balloon does not fly. Canglesea (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 28 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. The FAA is indisputably a RS and no OR has been identified. If the notability of the article remains under question following expansion, it can then be renominated. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Field (airport)[edit]

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

Not Notable. No Reliable sources. Original research. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although the article relies on a single source, that source (Federal Aviation Administration) is definitely reliable. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 11:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - wow, seriously you jumped on the article on barely three hours after I created it in the middle of the night?!?!?!? Keep, there's the FAA source (can anyone say reliable source independent of the subject???) also a few more I didn't have the chance to add in yet because the article WAS JUST EFFING CREATED. This article will comply for inclusion based on WP:GNG and WP:NGEO when given more than a few hours in the middle of the night to grow, but thanks anyway for trying to club a baby seal. JackTheVicar (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep calm down, JackTheVicar. The one source is definitely reliable, and there are probably more RS to be found. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and trout the OP for a premature nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No Reliable sources? Original research? Did the nominator read the article and look elsewhere for sources as required by WP:BEFORE? There's more than enough here and available online to support notability. Alansohn (talk) 15:43, 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 keep. Overall consensus is to Keep, I would also ask BeenAroundAWhile that in future they'd expand on there reasonings otherwise there AFDs will be Speedy Kept per WP:SK1. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Challenger Pulcra Lachiter Biella – Singles[edit]

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

Not encyclopedic. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is stub, not yet completed. but it may be improved. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Should we delete all draws for challenger tournaments? I do not see much difference between this and other draws linked in 2015 ATP Challenger Tour. Or between this article and the article for last year's tournament: 2014 Challenger Pulcra Lachiter Biella – Singles. --Kompik (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Nominator has no reason mentioned (or a pretty bad one). Such articles are allowed and good to go. Kante4 (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 28 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. Sandstein 12:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Land cover of Nepal[edit]

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

Redirect to Geography of Nepal#Land cover - identical content Flat Out (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this doesn't seem like a standalone encyclopedia entry and should be merged with other content, Nepal? Much of the content is plagarised from [52].--Lucas559 (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 28 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. Unanimous consensus to delete, but salting seems excessive (and not really supported by consensus). If this goes through another recreate/delete cycle, that will be the time to consider salting. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trade In Detectives[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of a deleted article with no substantial new coverage. I actually thought this eked by in 2014—it had significant coverage from vetted video games sources—but was informed that my standards were too low. The only sources remain as they are now: mostly clumped around the site's launch and slightly more promotional in nature than even your average games journalism. (My list of sources is at the previous AfD.) There have been no major changes since, but the article has been recreated anyway. I see no worthwhile redirect targets, either. – czar 04:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the couple sentences of reliable content into comparison shopping#Niche players per WP:NOTEWORTHY and WP:PRESERVE, where it will be easier to keep an eye on (preference#1), or delete and salt with fire (preference#2) as sockpuppet-created-spam in blatant violation of the 2014 AfD consensus about the somewhat-'manufactured'-sources[53] on which the original article was based. Either way, strongly suggest that somebody with the technical skills and the appropriate admin-bits create an abuse filter (tag-but-not-disallow) that will raise an alert whenever the names of the founders of Rubber Road and their spin-off Trade In Detectives are inserted into mainspace, since besides those two legal entities, they have at least three or four more corporations, further noting that they sometimes use shorter nicknames and sometimes use their full legal names.[54] Cannot remain a dedicated article in my opinion, despite technically passing WP:GNG; topic fails to truly demonstrate WP:N, because sources are all from the narrow Aug'13-Dec'13 range, and are all English-language videogame-related-press (which makes sense since site only offers comparison-shop for UK retailers and only for videgame-related-items). That constitutes a single burst of regional coverage per WP:NSOFT essay, see also WP:PERSISTENCE notability-guideline. No new WP:RS to be found, in the additional 19 months since Aug'13-Dec'13 that the business has been around; narrow-scope and narrow-timeframe coverage only lasted the first four months after official-biz-launch. Still qualifies as WP:NOTEWORTHY obviously, but given the circumstances, I understand why folks might lean towards straight deletion, as a future-spam-deterrent-mechanism. Thanks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salt fire? Sounds scary – czar 19:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- While I know little of the subject, the article seems largely a promotional ADVERT. As a re-creation, it should probably be salted to prevent it reappearing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page has been previously AfD'd and it resulted in deletion. The current references do not prove notability for video games. Ana r chyte 10:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, particularly 75.108.94.227. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. As pointed out she meets criteria 2 of Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles and MediaForest is listed at Wikipedia:Record charts#Recommended charts as being acceptable for Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie White[edit]

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

The sources - and, if I may, I'll ignore YouTube and Facebook links - largely fall into two categories:

cruft, cruft, cruft, cruft
blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post (if not strictly speaking blogs, some of these fall under the equally dismissible rubric of "tabloid trash")
Oh, and there's an interview in a baby magazine where Ellie tells us all we wanted to know about her pregnancy and the life of her newborn.

In other words, there is precious little here satisfying the "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and independent of the musician or ensemble itself" bit of WP:MUSBIO, and no reliable sources indicating the subject meets any of the guideline's other components. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Most if not all the sources I've found are pretty shit notability-wise, None are even worth adding to the article, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources added as well as the comments below, I didn't think New Forest was a legit source but if it is then it may aswell be kept, Crappish sources are better than no sources at all. –Davey2010^Talk 18:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally fails the notability requirements for a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Maybe fails the notability requirements for a musician but for having "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." I base this on his 849,000 likes on Facebook may enough for a keep.Sofiamar (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankfully, Facebook likes are still not considered evidence of anything – unless reported by third-party sources, which is not the case. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no way that Media Forest could be referred to as "cruft", their charts actually are the official record charts in Romania and an artist who, as noted in the article, ranked several times in their charts including a second place in 2011 certainly passes several criteria of MUSICBIO. Cavarrone 05:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Even accepting, for argument's sake, that Media Forest is a reliable source, that really doesn't do much for this individual. For starters, she never rose above 43rd place in their rankings, as far as I can tell. But that's a relatively minor point; the more salient one has to do with the fact that no guideline suggests one's mere presence in a chart proves notability. Sure, it can contribute to a claim of notability, but this is after all an encyclopedia, not a directory of every musician who has ever charted, regardless of WP:BASIC ("significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"). Even WP:MUSBIO a) notes that people filling at least one of the criteria "may be notable" (i.e., are not automatically notable) and b) reiterates WP:BASIC as the very first criterion ("multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself"). If no outside source has bothered to grant a musician even the semblance of significant coverage, there is no reason we should be doing so.
- Meanwhile, I've stripped out the unsourced or poorly sourced material. If that's all there can be said about the subject, again, it's not something worth keeping around. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While you are certainly allowed to not consider MUSICBIO a valid guideline, as long as MUSICBIO was not deprecated you have to accept that editors commonly use to consider notable musicians who charted, and especially musicians who ranked second in a national chart. And this should be even more clear as you recently started a number of similar AfDs using the same rationale (artists who charted in the Romanian Top-10 or so but whose current coverage is poor) and they ended with keep outcomes ([55], [56], [57], [58], [59]). At some point, your keeping to nominate for deletion successful artists who ranked in the Romanian top 10 could be considered disruptive and pointy. Also, your bold "cleanup" [60] in the middle of a deletion discussion seems to me very inopportune (to be fair), especially as you removed the second place of her song I noted in my rationale [61] as well as other decently sourced stuff you may consider "cruft" but others maybe not. Cavarrone 22:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to deal in facts, not speculation. To wit:

I have absolutely nothing against WP:MUSBIO; I think it's a very useful tool for gauging musicians' notability. It's just that I also pay attention to WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and the very first point of WP:MUSBIO, all of which explicitly call for "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". Nothing in WP:MUSBIO invalidates that call, and rightly so: without significant external coverage of individuals, there really is no reason for us to be providing standalone articles on them.

Yes, I performed a bold cleanup because, frankly, I would rather not have us be indefinitely clogged with yet more uncited dreck. If you think I went too far in places, please, go ahead and edit the article–while keeping in mind WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:BURDEN and all other relevant policies.

As for this link, it's emblematic for the kind of poor coverage plaguing the long version of this article. It comes from an outfit called "Agenția de Presă Mondenă" - "VIP press agency", in other words, a gossip aggregator. Current headlines from this esteemed outfit include "The hottest couple in showbiz! She has a wasp's waist, he has a muscular abdomen!"; "Look how sexy Andreea Manta is two months after she gave birth!"; "Anca Pop and bachelor Andrei Andrei, love on the sand, filmed from a drone!"; "How Anda Adam's pregnancy is going! Here's how the artist feels". I could go on, but I think the point is clear: this is a site peddling tabloid gossip, and we debase our currency by resorting to quoting such an outfit.

In sum: no reliable source has bothered to cover this individual in any depth, a couple of raw listings have her charting in the 40s and the 90s, and one utterly discreditable site claims she made second place for a day. Really, if that's the level of coverage that exists (and it does seem to be the case), the argument for deletion remains solid. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming Agenția de Presă Mondenă has fabricated the news? ...including the screenshot from the Media Forest website which documents the second place? Sorry, I don't buy such a conspiracy theory and I am restoring this material. About the rest, your long explanation is just confirming my "speculation": you are nominating Romanian dance artists who clearly meet several points of MUSICBIO (which is not a tool, it actually is an established notability guideline as well as GNG and the others) with the rationale they fail GNG. Your claim you have nothing against MUSICBIO is contradicted by the current AfD and by a number of failed AfDs you recently started. While I respect your views but if you disagree about MUSICBIO criteria being notability criteria, you should discuss your concerns in the MUSICBIO talk page instead of starting AfDs about top10 artists. For sure, you should not blame and badger editors who vote to keep the page "per MUSICBIO" as long as MUSICBIO is met and it is still a valid notability guideline. Cavarrone 07:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting words into my mouth and poisoning the well at the same time. No, I don't claim the "news" (if you can call it that) is fabricated, but that it's from an unquotable source. There are many sources we don't quote, even if they relay accurate information; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for the lengthy discussions that go on about this. A gossip aggregator plainly seems to fall into the category of the unquotable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- disregarding Cavarrone's lawyering above, there is absolutely nothing in the article (including in the original form) that would satisfy the universal or particular notability guidelines. The sources that were trimmed are chaff. Dahn (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To expand: the crux of the contrived keep argument is that Ellie White satisfied MUSICBIO because she came second in the "Media Forest Chart", as per MUSICBIO's definition that subjects may be notable if they get "a single or album on any country's national music chart." Media Forest, mind you, is no such chart: it is not a record of sales, it is a private-run, paid-for, and self-sourced ranking of airplay on a number of radio stations (from its own description, as pasted into the article: "The company provides a service in which artists and musicians Purchase a subscription that provides them real time information on broadcast channels, which have an Internet broadcast interface"). That it is to say: Media Forest is, itself, cruft; its entry on wikipedia is shameless advertising. One wonders if they and their employees are not being paid to enhance the exposure of aspiring artists on wikipedia as well. Dahn (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I want to emphatically address Cavarrone's misinformation above: Media Forest is not, and never was, anything closely resembling "the official charts in Romania". For the official (and defunct) charts, look no further than Romanian Top 100. The claim that Media Forest is in any way the current national chart is sourced exclusively to that article, and the source (Media Forest's own page...) doesn't even verify that claim. Who added it to the text, btw? Possibly the same IP who gave us this cruft as well. Dahn (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to the emphatic fuss above: most of the chart companies are generally private-run and paid-for (while I have no idea about what you actually intend for "self-sourced"), they are not public institutions and generally earn from their researches. Nothing in your extended analysis suggests Media Forest datas are unreliable or that Media Forest is not "a country's national music chart", it is recognized as reliable by WP:CHART and is marked as the only "recommended chart" for Romania. The point they offer an extended service for pay (real time airplay monitoring) does not mean in any way, shape, or form they are unreliable nor it is something so rare (eg. the leading company in this field AFAIN, Nielsen, offers the same and additional services for their subscribers [62] [63]). Cavarrone 06:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should have no problem finding as an independent reliable source that even so much as suggests Media Forest is in anyway "the official chart". For now, your claim is self-sources, and, as a Romanian speaker, I could find absolutely no source stating this claim -- not even Media Forest seems to spell it out anywhere. But do prove me wrong. Dahn (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably telling that you still don't know by this stage what "self-sourced" means -- it means that wikipedia doesn't trust a commercial source to describe itself accurately. Carlsberg is probably not the best beer in the world just because Carlsberg says it is; Media Forest is probably not the relevant national chart just because it itself hints at that. Dahn (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree with that, but sadly I have to repeat myself again as apparently you didn't take my point and I suspect you are giving a different meaning to the word "official" against me. Quoting myself above, Media Forest is "a country's national music chart" as prescribed by MUSICBIO, recognized as reliable by WP:CHART and marked as the only "recommended chart" for Romania (nor there are other Romanian charts listed as acceptable charts), and in this sense it is "the official chart" and the only chart WE currently apply and use for Romania, ie WE designed it as the official source for our scope and our purposes, period. That's what interests me, not some futile discussions about being "the best beer of the world". Generally speaking, I would take with a pinch of salt any claim about any chart being "the official chart" for a country (not even Billboard or Nielsen charts are THE OFFICIAL charts in this sense, let alone Romanian Top 100), and if you read my vote-rationale such as "Romania officially designed Media Forest as their official chart record company" sorry, but it was not what I intended to say. Cavarrone 11:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who added it there, based on what rationale, and why out of all available charts? As for the rule, it says that we should go with a national chart -- all other criteria not being met, as they are not in met in this case. But that is not the national chart, is it? Dahn (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First question, to make the long story short, its inclusion depends from the methodology used to compile the charts, MF's methodology (you can find described in their website) is considered serious, others you will find in WP:BADCHARTS not. Second point, yes, the Romanian branch of MF (www.mediaforest.ro) provides several specific national charts, ranging from daily to annual basis (otherwise it would not even be the recommended chart for this country). Cavarrone 15:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its inclusions depends on the whim of the user who added it. Was its inclusion even discussed, and assessed against other national charts? who determined its reliability and reputation when they chose it as the automatic successor for the official national chart? What outside source other than itself discusses its reliability and cultural relevancy, so that we may perhaps have the discussion now? Because you see: you're asking all of us simply submit to the rankings of a company who may, for all we know, been added as "acceptable" by its own staff. And also: the "national" charts on which this based and their methodology are about product exposure, not about sales or other objective criteria as to who people prefer; whatever it is, it is not the undeniable proof of popularity and cultural relevance that was the Romanian Top 100, which stood for the Romanian correspondent of the UK Singles Chart. Dahn (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just reminding you that what you call "product exposure" actually addresses the criterium 11 in WP:MUSICBIO. Their methodology is described here (see the various sections). Cavarrone 16:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something confusing here.... I translated this page from the Romanian. It was accurate and essentially the same page as the Romanian but in English. The sources are the same Romanian sources too. How is it that these same sources which have been on the Romanian page for years are all of a sudden crap and no good? I don't see a history of this type of debate on the Romanian page. If they are good there how are they not be good here? We need to restore this page back to the former proper translated page that I previously created. The current page is terrible and doesn't even list her history in DJ Project. Is that too in doubt? Come on people this has all gone insane. Ant75 (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be to do with the fact that English wikipedia has strict and elaborate quality standards, demands, and policies, whereas Romanian wikipedia has not even minimal enforcement of quality. Though yes, you ignored even policies that function there, those policies are not enforced there, at all. Dahn (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Media Forest have elaborated the official Romanian music charts ~~for some years in the middle of the 2000s~~ (based on airplay) since 2010 amended Kraxler (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC) and have been recognized as such in our list of official charts, accepted to use for WP:MUSICBIO #2. They went out of business some time ago, and there are now no official charts in Romania. However, archives of the official charts from 2011 (among others) have been preserved and are still accessable. amended. The firm that left in 2010 was Nielsen Corporation. Kraxler (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC) To question the validity of a guideline is not appropriate at an AfD. That must be made at the guideline's page. Here can be only stated whether an article passes or fails the guideline. In this case, as a question of fact, the subject passes. Period. Kraxler (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except the case isn't closed. Where's the "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? And who made Media Forest "accepted", other than one (possibly paid) user's whim? - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The significant coverage is further down, as is an explanation of the officiality of the charts. Accusing others of paid editing without a trace of evidence is WP:ABF. I suggest you calm down a bit. Kraxler (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - musician with a #2 hit passes WP:MUSICBIO #2, that alone would be sufficient o keep the article except in a case when there is absolutely no coverage anywhere. That's the current consensus on charting musicians, like it or not. In this case there is actually enough coverage to pass any additional requirement, see Ellie White, ponturi pentru proaspetele mămici, Ellie White lansează videoclipul piesei Sete de Noi, în premieră pe Libertatea.ro!, Actorul George Piştereanu apare în noul videolclip a lui Ellie White, Ellie White lansează la miezul nopţii, pe Libertatea.ro, piesa "Sete de noi", Ellie White relansează moda hiturilor cântate în limba română, Ellie White este mai difuzată decât Antonia, Raluka şi Delia Matache, Ellie White revine în forță cu un super hit! Vara aceasta dansăm pe “Zi ceva”! and so on... This nomination, after so many times being told that charting musicians are notable, and seeing the huge coverage in Romanian newsmedia, must be considered frivolous. I suggest Biruitorul WP:Drop the stick mow. Kraxler (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes "Media Forest" an accurate gauge of chart positions? Who gave them an authoritative position?
- What makes Libertatea, the epitome of a tabloid, a quotable source? And did you bother even considering what some of their article titles mean? Like the first one: "Ellie White, tips for new mothers". Yes, eminently quotable encyclopedic material.
- I'm still waiting for non-cruft, non-tabloid, authoritative sources indicating notability. You may consider that "frivolous", but WP:MUSICBIO demands no less. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop wasting our time. There are 135 discusiions in the log today. The above questions indicate that there may be a WP:Competence problem here. But that can be debated only at WP:ANI. Kraxler (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and Anda Adam, Ellie White, 3 Sud Est, la Revelionul în aer liber din Ploieşti, Ruxandra Dragomir şi Ellie White, în formă maximă după o oră de sport şi aerobic, Anda Adam şi Ellie White, travesti la „Te cunosc de undeva“, ELLIE WHITE a născut o fetiţă, Ce SUPERSTIŢII au Giulia Anghelescu, Diana Matei, Andreea Mantea şi Ellie White de când sunt ÎNSĂRCINATE, Ellie White este în CULMEA fericirii! A aflat SEXUL celui de-al doilea COPIL, how many do you want? Kraxler (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) This is a volunteer project; no one is obligated to contribute. As long as a nomination is not patently frivolous, I am perfectly entitled to make a case and push the case until such time as the discussion closes. Idle threats and misguided insults will not deter me from doing so.

2) I think the headlines of the "sources" you've adduced say it all:

"Ellie White [et al.] at an open-air New Years' concert in Ploiești"
"RD and Ellie White, in top shape after an hour of aerobics"
"AA and Ellie White, cross-dressing on [some show]"
"ELLIE WHITE gives birth to a daughter"
"What SUPERSTITIONS Ellie White et al. have while PREGNANT"
"Ellie White is AS HAPPY as can be! She found out the SEX of her second child"

I think these speak for themselves. Yes, they mention this individual, but they are in no way evidence of encyclopedic notability, they are tabloid chatter (yes, even respectable outlets can have that), routine announcements, cruft, above all unquotable. (No actual article would mention this kind of trivia.)

No real evidence of notability has emerged from this discussion, just a lot of noise, flanked by corporate spam masquerading as a valid substitute for a legitimate chart. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She's an entertainer, and she's entertaining the Romanians well enough. And, lest we forget, she had a number2 hit in the official charts of Romania. Kraxler (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the "officiality" of the Media Forest charts see Romanian Top 100. The latter were official until 2012, and have been compiled by Media Forest since 2010. They are still broadcast by Romanian Kiss FM. this tells you how the current Media Forest charts are compiled, they have an even broader basis than the Romanian Top 100. As has been pointed out, airplay is another WP:MUSICBIO criterion, it's # 11, and Ellie White passes that without any doubt. Kraxler (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CFEclipse[edit]

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

Standard searches did not reveal any substantial coverage of this product in reliable sources. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage exists in reliable sources. The fact that a news search doesn't return a single result is especially telling. Winner 42 Talk to me!

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find no significant coverage in reliable sources. Such coverage as I could find is advertising, promotional or technical. In fact, the article itself is essentially advertising with help links. It could be viewed as a content fork of Eclipse (software). Any Wikipedia mention of this plug-in that is needed (and it would appear to be little, if any) could be done in that article. Donner60 (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks promotional with no proper links.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:26, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rubie Corporate Plaza[edit]

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

Cannot find any references in WP:RS to demostrate notability. Note that mentions in passing do not count for establishing notability. The Anome (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete just a 4 storey office block with no significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Semi-promotional real estate reptile's article about dull building. Ie not notable.TheLongTone (talk) 12:59, 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 keep. There's clearly no consensus to delete. It's less clear if there's a consensus to merge or not, but, that's not a decision that needs to be made here. So, I'm going to call this a keep, with no prejudice against somebody performing a merge as part of normal editorial process. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary tattoo[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NOTHOWTO. Fangusu (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Body painting. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 06:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why body painting? Why not tattoo? Fangusu (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Tattoo#Temporary tattoos Deletion is not cleanup. The subject is notable, or at least worth inclusion with Tattoo; so just rid of the how-to parts. IMO the recent few revisions is not be the best state this article has been; random sampling through the history nets me Special:Diff/566580345 that looks better to me at least. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to either articles mentioned above. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleanup is needed, but not deletion. If anyone doesn't think there is anything of value, then redirect to Tattoo#Temporary tattoos as suggested above. Deli nk (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Heavy cleanup is required, but the article itself is eligible. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create a redirect to Tattoo. The article might possibly be eligible but cleary fails WP:GNG. Deliberately created as artspam and has slipped throgh the net ever since. The only sources/links are still purely commercial and Ghits appear to return no dedicated in-depth treatment other than a blog-style editorial in Vogue which on its own is not enough. The section in the suggested redirect target at Tattoo#Temporary tattoos also needs better sourcing than the incorrectly cited retro enhanced Wikipedia article on a non Foundation 3rd party wiki. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Clearly notable topic, what this article needs is sourcing, not deletion. AfD is not for cleanup, however. This is many miles over the GNG bar... See, for example, "Temporary Tattoos Have Long History," Chicago Tribune, 1999; "Hacking the Human Body With Temporary Tattoos and Tiny Implants," Smithsonian magazine, 2015; "Henna: Temporary tattoos with a rich cultural history," WMUK-FM, 2013; "Are Temporary Tattoos Safe?" Discovery.com, 2013; "Contact dermatitis after temporary henna tattoos – an increasing phenomenon," Swiss Med Weekly, 2001; ad infinitim. Carrite (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a commonly used product deserves an article. Imsare (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm afraid "temporary tattoo" is more or less synonym to "body painting" with a slightly more specific usage, but treated as synonym in the sources. The Body painting article is very well written, and has most, if not all, info that is in this article. At this time this article is a rather badly written WP:CONTENTFORK. It should be considered either to redirect or merge this to Body painting or, alternatively enlarge and WP:SPINOUT the Body painting#Temporary tattoos section from there to a stand-alone article. Kraxler (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Puppy chow[edit]

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

non-notable. No references asserting notability. valereee (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it only needs a reliable source Meganalli (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meganalli, do you find a reliable source anywhere? I see literally nothing. valereee (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm actually somewhat familiar with this snack. In any case, this is pretty much a homemade variation of Chex Mix. There's already somewhat of a mention of this of sorts at Chex_Mix#Homemade_Chex_Mix. No specific names are mentioned, but this is because there are just so many of them out there. (You can use other cereals, but it's usually Chex based.) It is fairly popular and is recorded in various cookbooks under some different names (primarily Puppy Chow and Muddy Buddies), but I don't know if that's entirely a sign of notability per se. I know that typically we like to have some sort of non-cookbook coverage of a snack to show that it really warrants its own article. I'll see what I can find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable snack. I've known it as reindeer food. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I live in Wisconsin, and our local Festival Foods grocery sells this on the shelves, and does in fact call it Puppy Chow. Anecdotally, my mom used to make and send it out every year around Xmas. So it is a thing that is reasonably well known (A couple links to it at http://celebrate.festivalfoods.net/cooking/recipeView.php?recID=235&location=recFestival and http://www.food.com/recipe/puppy-chow-snack-mix-1035) - I'm not sure if that makes it worthwhile, but there are a few legit sources that discuss it. Ergonomic Cat (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm somewhat familiar with this snack too, but notability doesn't depend on how well known a subject is—notability depends on significant coverage in reliable sources. To substantiate arguments to keep the article, reliable, secondary sources that discuss this subject in detail should be brought up here. Mz7 (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Doesn't violate WP:NOT, and it isn't written in a promotional manner. It's notable to the point of some other food articles, for which the bar seems to be a bit lower than other topics.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There are a number of different homemade snacks that are made out of cereal. Most of them are WP:BARE, they exist and that's about it. Per WP:ENN they probably don't deserve individual articles and I am not familiar with any policy regarding what is essentially notable about individual pieces of cuisine. It is something I'd expect to find here though. If someone were to merge them and actually research some notable information it would likely make a worthwhile article. Savonneux (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Chex Mix or merge with other snacks made from cereals/commercial dry snacks. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources for this snack food. The sources are recipes in newspapers and children's cookbooks. This could be covered much better if it were part of a larger comprehensive article on the overall type of snack. valereee (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:32, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mannoge Rajanan[edit]

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

Subject fails Music notability and Film notability, in particular WP:NACTOR - no significant roles or in-depth secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nominator.--Blackknight12 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG.--Chamith (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Faramarz Aslani. Sandstein 13:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hafez, a Memorandum[edit]

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

Could find no evidence of independent notability of this album, does not appear to meet the criteria of WP:NALBUMS. KDS4444^Talk 02:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Substantial proportion of the text was a copyvio, no evidence of notability.Brustopher (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Faramarz Aslani, per WP:NALBUM, non-notable album, only ref is artist's own website, stand-alone article not warranted Kraxler (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Rainbow unicorn (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calito Soul[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD ended in no consensus, but there was almost zero participation. Evidently there was a small burst of local coverage concerning the subject a few years ago. However, he does not appear to come anywhere close to satisfying either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. As he died earlier this year, unlikely he will garner any further notability. Safiel (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - I found nothing even in the slightest good to suggest improvement and I would've like to see what newspapers the IP was talking about. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: His death made news in Panama [64] [65], unfortunately the most detailed source [66] appears to be largely copied from the Spanish-language wikipedia article on him. His career mostly predates the rise of the web, particularly for Panama which wasn't the quickest country to adopt the technology, so there is probably some recentism at play here. It all adds up to a weak keep for me. Vrac (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The article has only one working source (of the two it has) actually linking to content. I would be a delete vote, as I haven't found much with a quick search, but the Spanish Wikipedia (Carlito Soul) contains one more source than the article here does (three). The article there also appears longer. Perhaps some translation could be done and the English Wikipedia article could be expanded.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I agree with Godsy "Perhaps some translation could be done and the English Wikipedia article could be expanded."Noenorth (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are out there to establish notability. They don't need to be en ingles. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misty Hall[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH, due to no national awards as a college athlete or non-trivial national media attention. See also her official Virginia Tech bio. Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 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 09:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and the because most of the source links are dead. Most of the sources seem to be to either a particular newspaper or a college (as I said some do not work). More third party working sources asserting further notability would be needed for the article to its warrant retention.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not really notable. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Paintings by Adolf Hitler. Davewild (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Courtyard of the Old Residency in Munich[edit]

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

After I outmerged the irrelevant information about Hitler's short career as an artist, this is all that is left. It is one of an estimated 300 paintings by Hitler; one of at least four housed at the Army Center of Military History warehouse. My search on several resources has revealed little about this. Knowing the painting's real title would help. Given it's secluded location I doubt much more about this will come to light anytime soon. I would love to be proven wrong however. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update For anyone who wants to join me in my search, it is indexed as "29082 Painting, Watercolor, On Paper, "Old Court In Munich", by Hitler, Adolf, 1914, Early-20th Century." Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2 - I discovered we have a photo of the painting in its warehouse. The one on the upper left is arguably more notable: it was one of Hitler's during a rejected submission to the Vienna School of Art. It was one of four concerned in Price v. United States. Would have to find coverage of this one specifically to ascertain notability. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Hitler is of course notorious. Because of that his work is never exhibited. The question is whether he was sufficiently good as an artist for his (short) atistic career to merit an article. If kept, it should be renamed to reflect its true title, "Old Court In Munich", by Hitler, Adolf (as now discovered). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skill of the artists is irrelevant on Wikipedia. Some works are notable for their lack of taste. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ As it stands the article makes close to no specific comments on its namesake painting, just commenting on Hitler's art in general. I've searched around and found close to nothing on it. There do seem to be a few books around about Hitler's career as a painter however, and perhaps if someone can get a hold of one that contains information about this specific painting the article can be salvaged. Brustopher (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to Merge per Savonneux Brustopher (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning Keep~~ This particular painting is quite often used as an illustration re Hitler's artistic aspirations. The text is awful though. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better - Merge and redirect to Paintings by Adolf Hitler per others. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:N If a notable person's main article is too long to contain all of their works, then a separate page can be created for that information. Mein Kampf Has its own article despite the authors lack of notability as an writer. This work has coverage and is reproduced in many places despite the creator's lack of notability as an artist. Savonneux (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Savonneux: Can you point to any in depth coverage this piece has recieved? The article seems to use sources mostly to comment on Hitler's art in general, instead of this specific painting. Brustopher (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Merge and redirect to Paintings by Adolf Hitler (didn't see it before), far more elegant solution since this is a WP:BARE article.--Savonneux (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Paintings by Adolf Hitler as well. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Paintings by Adolf Hitler as per Heyyouoverthere. There are sources that discuss this painting, here: [67] There is pretty much nothing in Hitler's life that hasn't been discussed somewhere. The painting is of a famouspicturesque view of pre-war Munich. But I see nothing that makes this particular Hitler watercolor notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is one of the paintings Gordon Gilkey rounded up in the immediate post-war period, acting on behalf of the Allied Forces. There are a number of sources on the painting [68] all so brief that merging makes sense to me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Sphilbrick per CSD A10 (recently created article that duplicates an existing topic). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Ecuador Provinces[edit]

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

Content does not cover what the title suggests The Banner talk 01:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a truly bizarre recontextualization of Provinces of Ecuador by its relevance to a beauty pageant. postdlf (talk) 02:09, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss United Continent 2013[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Parent article Miss United Continent deleted Flat Out (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable pageant....William 09:41, 29 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. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Binder[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no substantial coverage, and fails WP:NGRIDIRON having never actually played in a CFL game. See his CFL profile with no stats listed as evidence he did not play in any games. Note that there exists a baseball pitcher with the same name, who will return some news articles about an unrelated person in a search. Withdrawn, see below. ~ Rob^Talk 01:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He played in one CFL game during the 2010 season. [69] [70] [71] [72]. The CFL.ca pages don't list games played stats. Some players, like offensive linemen, wont have any stats because there aren't really any stats for them to get. Thx WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Accepting on good faith that the subject played in a regular season CFL game, which passes notability for WP:NGRIDIRON. Looks to me like he played in games according to the link provided. Would obviously change my position of I'm wrong.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn He's a wide receiver, not an offensive lineman, so it's unusual for him to record no game stats while playing. I was able to find him on a depth chart here. While this doesn't guarantee he ever actually took the field, it's likely he did. This can be speedily kept. ~ Rob^Talk 15:56, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss United Continent 2015[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

parent article Miss United Continent deleted Flat Out (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, smaller pageant, sources mostly pageant blogs Cheetah255 (talk) 21:07, 31 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, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss United Continent 2014[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

parent article Miss United Continent deleted Flat Out (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant, Fails NEVENT & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable pageant....William 14:53, 29 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) 07:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Bradshaw[edit]

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

Article was nominated for speedy deletion for non-notable sources and lack of coverage. However, I noticed that she's made it to the NY Bestseller list and USA today Bestseller list. I still think she's most likely non-notable, but a consensus would better serve this article, and perhaps the article being debated on can uncover other information. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should also note that the article was created by a likely WP:SPA Megalibrarygirl (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Bestsellers?" Not ... on the USA Today list her book was #115 -- and I admit that it is really hard to know what that number means, but I don't think it supports the "bestseller" moniker. The NYT page is for a book in which she had a story. Neither of those confers notability. I looked up her books - they are self-published through CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Looking at ones that are listed here as "bestsellers" - I found each book in exactly one library in WorldCat. Her runner-up status in the Shamus awards was in the category "Best indie PI..." not "Best PI" story. There's nothing to here to keep. LaMona (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-published novelists whose work has not gotten large attention let alone any scholarly attention. Being at a number higher than 100 on a list of best sellers tells me that her books just have not made it. She might some day be notable, but not now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article claims (and I have no reason to doubt but have not verified) that she has a story in a short story collection that ranked at #19 for a week in 2014 on a NYTimes bestseller list of "Combined Print & E-Book Fiction." That's about it, except for an article in the very small newspaper in her very small town.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, although I bet she's a talented writer, hopefully she'll be back here in Wikipedia in a year or so.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:37, 31 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) 15:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red Horse Beer[edit]

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

No indication is given that the beer is independently notable. Sources are a page of user-submitted reviews (not reliable) and the brewery itself. For about a year the page was a redirect to the parent company, but IP editors recently turned it into a full article again without addressing the notability issues. Per WP:BLAR I'm bringing it here. Huon (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If not independently notable, an option is to merge to San Miguel Brewery. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a global brand, sold in many parts of the world, even winning medals in international beer awards 1 which earned a congratulatory House Resolution from the Philippine Congress 2. And even landing in the news in as far as South Sudan. 3.--RioHondo (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep award winning beer.--KTo288 (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Highly notable. 91.9.109.131 (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well if won an international award then that could be enough to establish notability. Also, I find it amusing that Philippine beer is sold in other countries as well, countries which many Filipinos probably have never even heard of. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am not sure of this article's worth, but IP editors are adding content copied from the article about Liv and Maddie to this article. Should we put this page on semi-protection? Also, I removed a section called "slogans" due to a lack of sourcing, and the slogans were not in English either. One of them even mentioned Liv and Maddie, despite the fact that the Disney Channel sitcom about identical twins does not seem to have any sort of connection to this particular article. Kkjj (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Wellesley Morrell[edit]

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

Is a Royal Navy fleet paymaster notable? Doesn't seem like it to me, and if not, he certainly doesn't satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, this is marginal. However if we ask "Is the encyclopedia better for having it?", then I think the answer is yes. This is someone who had a varied career across a historically interesting period of considerable naval changes. They may have been something of an observer to events, rather than an instigator, but their story is still a useful chronicle of the time. If we were to open a museum gallery, this is just the sort of character who a good museum designer might latch onto in order to tell a historically important narrative, such as the Sudan and China expeditions, through the agency of some more personal character. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources? An unpublished diary and refs from archives plus a single London Times article which, from its title, doesn't appear to directly detail the subject. Even if the citations were available online to audit, there's nothing approaching multiple reliable secondary sources here. A reasonable online search doesn't help us much. WP:SOLDIER gives us guidance on what might be presumed to be notable, but as nominator has pointed out, subject doesn't meet any of the criteria there. Subject is so obscurely sourced, I can only presume this is page creator's relative. I can't disagree with Andy's interpretation of the possible interest a professional historian might find in the subject (such a diary might attract me); until somebody does, we don't have anything upon which to base an encyclopedia article. I'd be only too happy to give this another look if someone better connected to sources can find some. BusterD (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I haven't found a single article or even mention of him, just standard Royal Navy listings of servicemen. It appears this information was likely written by a relative who has his diaries.[73] —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His rank is too junior for any "inherent" notability and he had no significant honours or decorations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to lack "significant coverage" so fails WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- one of the sources is unpublished diaries, presumably in the hands of the article's author. This is not an academic study of the subject, largely a piece of no-encyclopaedic family history on a NN administrative officer. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the only sources I could find seem to be lists and primary source documents, which are not really enough to establish significant coverage. I haven't performed an exhaustive search, though, so I'd be happy to change my opinion if more substantial sources could be provided. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/issues/23162/pages/5032

[2] Charles Mosley, editor, Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, 3 volumes (Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A.: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 2003), volume 1, page 643.

[3] "Online bank fraud victim awarded Rs 18L".

[4] "6 banks, telecom firm to pay for credit card frauds".

[5] "Unliken Security Innovation Conference".

[6] "Exposed: The Demo of card cloning and how to avoid the card cloning by Prashant Mali".

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]