Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 May	2 June >

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 speedy delete as WP:A11, WP:G11. Even if this wasn't something that was made up one day, the article's promotional tone would be enough to qualify this for a speedy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New America Party[edit]

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

I can't quite tell for sure, but this looks like a political party that was made up one day by the article creator. The links provided do not work, as they part of a trial membership at the web host and are only accessible to the author of the webpage. There are a few hits scattered throughout reliable sources (such as OC Weekly and The NYT), but they look like unrelated false positives. As far as I can tell, no organization by this name has satisfied WP:ORG yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated for speedy deletion based on made up or a hoax. I have a feeling this is someone's high school project - the logo is not even original [1]. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn I called that!! User:Colton1755/sandbox —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:47, 1 June 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) 06:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marketroid[edit]

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

This article is a dictionary entry. Policy WP:NOTDIC. Marketroid already exists at Wiktionary. All references fail WP:RS as self-published sources. Alsee (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On seeing "(2nd nomination)" here I found WP:Articles_for_deletion/Marketroid already reached a DELETE close 9 years ago. I tagged the article for Speedy delete: G6. Technical deletions of articles that have already been AFD'd. This AFD may be closed as moot. Alsee (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opening for clarification. Alsee, according to the page history and deletion log, this page was deleted after the 2006 deletion discussion, but was subsequently recreated in 2009, so I don't see how G6 applies. Did you mean to CSD under G4? In that case it would be best to have an admin check whether both versions are substantially similar or not. Thanks! Altamel (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with re-open. I didn't see it had been deleted and recreated. We need to AFD it, as a recreated dictionary entry. Alsee (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Alsee (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term is clearly notable (and if not, please delete it from Wiktionary too). Nor is presence at Wiktionary reason alone to delete it from WP. Wiktionary is a very sparse dictionary (and not even an etymological dictionary) whilst WP is an encyclopedia. If there is scope for encyclopedic coverage of a notable topic (i.e. an article can be produced that surpasses DICDEF) then I see no reason at all to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has three refs to self-published dictionaries and one ref to self-published useless example of the word being used. All 4 need to be removed. The article fails both WP:V and WP:NOTDIC. Can you offer ONE source to provide encyclopedic coverage (not dictionary coverage)? Alsee (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More inclined to delete as although I like the article being neat and sourced, essentially there aren't many good significant and notable sources, with Books, News, highbeam and thefreelibrary finding nothing outstanding. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non-notable, per Alsee's breakdown of the sources (and my own Googling); also fails WP:NOTNEO. APerson (talk!) 19:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kelly (soccer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he plays in the United Soccer League. However, since he is yet to make his debut, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dialectic in the Park[edit]

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

obscure and now-forgotten neologism The Dissident Aggressor 22:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear like it was ever significant enough to merit an article. SnowFire (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: User:SnowFire is right: it's actually an article about a neologism! The most generous reading of the article is that it's about WP:ONEEVENT. By both standards, the article fails notability standards. (Lehman organized it in 2008? That's quite a pill.) Hithladaeus (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Books, browser and News found nothing to suggest this has been mentioned outside that Financial Times article. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It reads as if it was a conference or event about 10 years ago, which every one has now forgotten, so that it is presumably now NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Football Manager 2016[edit]

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

Possible future product fails WP:CRYSTAL as it's entirely based upon a job posting for the project. Per WP:CRYSTAL, "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate" and this isn't even an announcement. --Non-Dropframe _talk 22:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I certainly expect that this article will be made at some time in the future, but there's no reason for it to exist in its current state. Clearly falls under WP:CRYSTAL. This type of content seems best suited to game-related message boards. Bordwall(^talk⁄_ctrb) 23:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. It will be notable, but not right now. Also, it hasn't actually been confirmed as happening, the name could change (they used to be called "Championship Manager" after all). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – It has all been said above. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps we should look at the other creations from this unexperienced user also. Qed237 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:TOOSOON --Anar chyte 09:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As others have said, WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 06:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As detailed above, WP:CRYSTAL applies here. The article should be deleted and may be recreated upon release of the product when it meets WP:Notability guidelines. — Jordan Mussi ^Talk 15:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON RoadWarrior445 (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Had there been alot more content and sources I'd of probably !voted Keep but a one liner with one source doesn't cut it, Seems more logical to delete and just recreate once there's more known about it. –Davey2010^Talk 00:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a couple of sources that mention requested features for the game (realism & "demands") but these don't really support content in a Wikipedia article. There isn't enough (yet) to prove notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:50, 8 June 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 salt. --MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Aymerich actor[edit]

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

Not sure what to make of this-apparently Jaime Aymerich was salted though which seems to be the same person so this might not be notable Wgolf (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he's been in a lot of things but no major roles, and has some coverage but not enough. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've already speedied this once Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm a Spanish speaker so I was more than able to search for sources and found nothing significant (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) aside from some News links that are not significant or notable. The longest role he has had was one TV series for 13 episodes and after that is a show for 4 episodes, even searches for these two find nothing third-party. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turtle punch[edit]

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

This is a free browser game. None of the sources are independent of the developer, and I can't find anything on Google but press releases. A WP:VG/RS Google custom search comes up similarly empty. It looks like this article was created too soon, as I don't see any evidence that it satisfies our inclusion criteria. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Grayfell (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominators reasoning. --Anar chyte 09:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, this has not received any independent coverage at all and I found nothing despite multiple searches. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 4 June 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 minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1875 Neruda[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Fails per WP:SCIENCE. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 4 June 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 minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1679 Nevanlinna[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Fails per WP:SCIENCE. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect. I found two lightcurve studies (one a re-analysis of previous data) [2] [3]. That's not quite enough for notability for me, but close. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 4 June 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) Esquivalience ^t 01:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1318 Nerina[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Fails per WP:SCIENCE. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found five separate lightcurve studies that included this object [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. That's more than enough, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient sources per David. -- Kheider (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it's also a high inclination X-class asteroid and a probable interloper into the Phocaea family.[9][10] Praemonitus (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:NASTRO per the sources provided above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The two "keep" opinions do not present arguments that counter the lack of reliable independent sources. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Holy Bible[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBOOK, and WP:NWEB. This is a web-based Bible translation with one author which has no reliable secondary sources. Searches for sources found nothing and no signs of anything. From article talk, plausible WP:COI concerns with article creator as well. Grayfell (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as fails notability - self-published translation which appears to be freeware/pdf. The talk page is hilarious. I have many favorite parts. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bible translations are pretty much a dime a dozen, as every few years someone comes up with a new translation with some sort of gimmick to it. (Easier to read, more "true" to how it was originally written, etc.) Sometimes these translations can catch on and become notable, like the ESV or The Message, but I don't see where this is the case here. Bible translations do not automatically inherit the Bible's notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). As was said on the talk page, this has nothing to do with what translation is "correct" or "right". This deletion is all about whether or not this specific translation has received coverage in independent and reliable sources like newspaper articles, scholarly coverage in academic journals or academic textbooks, and similar. I'm fully aware of how difficult it is for a new translation of the Bible to get this sort of coverage in RS. Despite the amount of believers, the amount of scholars and newspapers that would cover this and be considered reliable sources is pretty small. Regardless, that coverage is still required and a search doesn't show where anyone has really paid much attention to this translation. A search brings up nothing that would be considered a RS. That there are very few "junk" hits (false positives) and non-usable hits (primary sources, blogs, forums, etc) is also pretty telling. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article (and a person above) mistakes "translation" and "paraphrase." An actual translation is an incredible feat. It takes decades, and the idea that one will be undertaken by a single person is simply incredible. Tyndale took quite a few years, as I recall. A translation takes working with all the editorial decisions on manuscripts, all variora, and being an expert in several dialects of ancient Hebrew, as well as koine Greek, "church" Latin (for the Vulgate), and medieval Latin and late koine (for early editors). On the other hand, it's easy-peasy to take someone else's translation and "fix" it by recasting it. That's what is most often done (The Patriot's Bible, The Housewife's Bible, The Tea Party Bible are all real things, and they're RSV that's been chopped and squeezed, with emendations to serve political and cultural points). This ain't no "fixing" of the Bible, has no confirmation or independent coverage, and seems pretty much like another amateur with an agenda. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You can not measure the notability of Web based translations with the same measures as those that started as hard copy; otherwise should you remove all the Online and Public Domain Bibles for being a stub. Looking to the links in other Modern English Bibles: The reviews in other Modern English Bibles are made by their publishers so they are not the NEUTRAL peer-reviews that you expect from the Restored Holy Bible. This is a double standard. Katoog (talk 06:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any translation, regardless of whether it was in print, electronic, or both formats, must have been the focus of independent and reliable coverage. The coverage doesn't have to be identical and I'm aware that older translations will have had the opportunity to enjoy a higher chance of coverage, but being an online-only translation does not exempt this article from the same notability guidelines as any other translation. The existence of other articles (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) does not automatically mean that this article should remain. Those other translations might pass notability guidelines in ways that this does not or it could just be that those articles haven't been nominated for deletion just yet. As far as reviews go, I'm not sure that you're thinking of reviews in the same ways that we are. In order to be a reliable source the review or critique must be published via an outlet (print, website, TV) that is a vetted source that is also independent of the publisher or people otherwise involved with the production of the work. For example, Zondervan publishes their own translation of the Bible. Anything that is published by Zondervan on this specific translation would be considered a WP:PRIMARY source at best since they have a conflict of interest that would make them potentially biased towards the subject. However if a separate publisher (like Yale Press) or an academic journal (Asia Journal of Theology) were to publish an article written by someone who was not involved with the creation of Zondervan's translation, those would be considered reliable sources. It's not easy for new translations to get coverage (especially if they're not translations but adaptations of a pre-existing translation, as in Hithladaeus's comment) but it's still a requirement. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just because this was published on a website as opposed to an e-book publisher does not mean that this Bible translation wouldn't fall under WP:NBOOK. Even if we were to set it for the general notability requirements (WP:GNG) or the requirements for websites (WP:NWEB), you would still have to show independent and reliable sources. You'll never find an article on Wikipedia that passes notability guidelines and only has itself as a reference, at least none that should be on Wikipedia. Every notability guideline on Wikipedia requires coverage in secondary, reliable sources. You're not going to find any experienced editor that will agree otherwise. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "notablity" of The Message and RSV is only because of the marketing and the "b-movie reviews" by professionals. "a-movie reviews" (good reviews for faithful translations) are less done by professionals. World English Bible(WEB) is the most notable of the all the Public Domain Bibles it is supported many Bible software but unknown in the offline world of established publishers and Academic journals; The deletion of World English Bible(WEB) from the Public Domain links by Grayfell(the nominator) was the reason for my first reaction in the talk page. It is not only about the Restored Holy Bible but about every Public Domain or Web Bible that are notable by the users of Bible software; they are all in danger for deletion by editors who don't use Bible software.Katoog (talk 05:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about my edits to Modern English Bible translations. That article is very messy, and has many WP:OVERLINKS. I think I removed World English Bible from one of the redundant lists, which I am happy to discuss with you. This nomination isn't the place to discuss that, though. The WEB article itself does need more reliable sources, and again, a discussion of that problem would be appropriate somewhere else, such as Talk:World English Bible. If this Bible is notable in the online world, then it should be possible to find reliable online sources discussing it. Right now there are none. Grayfell (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur with Grayfell. If there are issues with other articles (and odds are high that there are) then they need to be dealt with on the talk pages for those articles, not here. The WEB is not the page that is currently up for deletion. It does need additional sourcing to show notability, but that's something to talk about on that specific talk page. Also, just because Grayfell is actively trying to improve and edit other pages that deal with electronic Bibles does not mean that he has an agenda or is out to delete every article on e-Bibles, which is pretty much what you're inferring here. You're not really doing much to help your case here. You need to provide coverage in reliable sources. Saying that other stuff exists and making WP:BADFAITH assumptions about editors on here and on the article's talk page really doesn't reflect well on you or on the article. If anything it kind of just hammers home that this really isn't a notable translation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is now rated as Start-Class and Low-importance.Katoog (talk 09:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it has no independent references that might confirm notability. – Fayenatic London 15:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I thought we had an accepted position that all Bible translations were notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well... that's a bit of an issue since one of the above editors has questioned whether or not this is an actual translation or if it's just a rephrasing of other translations. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is heavy edited from the Webster Bible since January 2012 and later compared with the Restored Textus Receptus beta (Restoration of the Original NT Text) that is now used as only NT source (there are thousands of Tense Voice Mood and Harmonisation related edits taken from the Hebrew and Greek sources) for example the pLuperfect "had known" and "had stood" in the NT. But that doesn't matter because the point is that all Bible translations are Bibles and the Bible is notable. The Restored Holy Bible is a Bible translation and is therefore notable. (WP:NOTINHERITED) doesn't cover translations of any notable book.Katoog (talk 07:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be completely blunt, a revised version of a pre-existing translation is not a new translation and you won't find many Biblical scholars that say otherwise. To count as its own translation Vanhee would have had to have translated this himself from the original Hebrew and Greek, word for word. Sometimes revised (ie, "paraphrased") works can become independently notable, however this does not seem to be the case here. I'm pinging Peterkingiron to this effect since his keep depends heavily on this book being a new translation and not a revision. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, while revising is not an easy task it is not the same thing as a translation. What's problematic here especially is that this is a revision of a revision and while Webster's Revision is notable because it's heavily used (or is at least still sold in stores, although it's not as popular as other texts) and has received coverage in academic texts, I can't see where this revision of a revision is ultimately noteworthy. I can see the argument that original translations can be considered notable, but I don't see where this should/could apply to revised texts unless they have received coverage in independent and reliable sources- which this hasn't. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[sometimes revised (ie, "paraphrased") works] The Restored Holy bible is a Literal translation: more literal then Webster. Does this sound as a simple paraphrase? Harmonisation: identical direct quotes, idioms and phrases must be translated identical (the same word-order, punctuation and no synonyms). The translation must be so literal as possible without using wooden English and in respect with the Poetic Layout.

Secondly; by your measures is the King James Bible a paraphrase and not a translation because it used the Bishops' Bible as basis in the beginning. And the Webster Bible who used the King James as basis. The Restored Holy Bible is a translation; using the word "paraphrase" is like the reverse philosophy as the Message did. (Using his own words instead of using the sources is also called paraphrasing). [works can become independently notable, however this does not seem to be the case here] Remember that WP:BADFAITH is assuming that it is only a KJV clone.Katoog (talk 15:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However the KJV was not simply a revised text. It was still a translation that took 47 translators and 7 years to complete. Even if we were to consider it simply a revised text, the fact that there are an extremely large amount of sources covering the KJV would easily qualify it for notability. The RHB is a text by someone who revised ("paraphrased") a pre-existing work. It has received absolutely zero coverage in reliable sources and to be very honest, even if it was an actual translation I would still say that it would have to establish notability by way of coverage in independent and reliable sources. (IE, academic sources by people who were not directly related to the project itself.) What we have here in this situation is a revised version that has received zero coverage in reliable sources and is almost non-existent in a Google search in general, as a search using "Restored Holy Bible" brought up only a couple thousand search hits in the general category and zero in Google Scholar. A search on Bing brought up less than a hundred. It just isn't notable. Just because some translations and revisions of the Bible are notable does not mean that all translations and revisions are notable. That's kind of like saying that because some strains of Christianity are notable that all strains of Christianity are notable. The most basic guideline of notability is that the topic has to receive coverage in reliable sources and this has none, nor does there even seem to be enough general use of the Bible to even argue that it should be kept based on the amount of use. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think that trying to determine if this is a translation, or a paraphrase, or adaptation, or anything else is basically a distraction, because we do not have any reliable sources, and trying to make such distinctions on our own would be original research. Right now the article doesn't really have any reliable sources indicating that this project even exists. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, of course, but even the loosest interpretation of WP:N requires at least some basic sourcing. If we don't have sources, we need some reason to suspect that there are sources we haven't found yet/don't have access too. Do we have any reason to think that? Grayfell (talk) 03:26, 8 June 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alyas Pogi: Ang Pagbabalik[edit]

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

Contested PROD, Non notable film where no reliable independent sources exist to demonstrate notability. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep and allow this brand new article to be expanded over time and through attention of Philippines editors. Yes, sourcing Philippines films is often difficult... and specially when the topic is pre-internet. But this receiving FAMAS Award recognition allows a reasonable supposition that it did receive press coverage 26 years ago. As "some" sources ARE available, there is no need to toss it because the nominated version did not use them. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no online archive of newspapers that exist for the period when this film was shown (August 1999). However, one of the actors in the movie is now a senator, and "Alyas Pogi" has been used to refer to him in a lengthy opinion piece, and by the president himself. This most likely shows that the movie was notable enough for people to refer to the actor more than a decade after the film was shown. –H T D 07:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as (1) it fails to make a claim to notability under WP:NFILM and (2) it fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Lastly, notability is not inherited, just because the actor is famous does not make all his films famous. Even were this material to be kept, it should be as part of an article about the trilogy, and not as a separate article. --Bejnar (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Bejnar, but you are mistaken. Sourced as wining FAMAS Award recognition IS an attribute of notability under WP:NF, AND being spoken of many years later,[11][12] IS an indicator that the the film was notable enough 25 years previously. We do not expect that films released in the Philippines before the internet would have continued commentary and analysis decades later. Read WP:NTEMP and WP:UNKNOWNHERE. You are quite welcome to do your pre-internet Phillipines research and write about the other two films, but you would likely have to fly there and hire a local to visit libraries and universities for hard-copy non-English news sources unavailable online. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sucks that this article is in the time period where there is no online newspaper archive. If this was from the late 1980s to mid 1990s, and from the early 2000s to 2003-ish, we could find something. The Google Newspaper Archive doesn't have anything for this time period. –H T D 15:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A FAMAS award in the Philippines is analogous to an American film winning an Oscar. --- Tito Pao (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MQS, HTD, Titopao, who correctly note that FAMAS award & nomination sufficiently establish notability, especially given the desire to minimize systemic geographic and FUTON bias. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:37, 1 June 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) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Toner (journalist)[edit]

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

Sources appear to be related to the subject, or mention him only in passing. Article does not indicate notability per wp:JOURNALIST or wp:GNG. Google search does not turn up anything better. Happy Squirrel (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Withdrawn - It seems leader writers operate in ways that make them appear less notable than they are. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leader writers for major UK newspapers seem to be notable. It is odd that this particular leader writer has been chosen for deletion at this particular moment in time. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexdeGrey (talk • contribs) 20:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure how this process works but precedence indicates this is how it's done. I think that the editor who has suggested deletion needs to use google books and add additional words to Toner's name such as 'Michael Toner political editor', 'Michael Toner Sunday Express' etc. I have included a number of additional references to assist. Not sure where the nominator is based but UK leader writers tend to operate in the shadows ... yet effectively act as newspaper editors when the actual editor is absent. Toner was leader writer of two significant British newspapers — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexdeGrey (talk • contribs) 13:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was a key member of the British press establishment in the last quarter of the 20th century: as Political editor of a UK national newspaper with access to senior political circles (interviewing Prime Ministers etc.) and also for his role as chief leader writer for two national UK newspapers. The work of the leader writer is normally done anonymously which explains happysquirrel’s observation of lack of google hits above. As he was a leader writer for over twenty years his unattributed work/output must be prodigious. However, the article cites multiple sources for his work as Crossbencher columnist for the Sunday Express and, as suggested by the person above, hits do rise when you google “Michael Toner Sunday Express” (although google shouldn’t be the only authority here). He is also notable as a writer: for Bluffer’s Guides and as a novelist given that worldcat cites four works in 117 libraries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandolini (talk • contribs) 10:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep user:Happysquirrel, you may want to withdraw this AFD. Kudos to User:AlexdeGrey for sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks to have held significant positions on significant newspapers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 3 June 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) 20:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss International Estonia[edit]

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

Advertising, fails WP:GNG. Not enough independent sources (conform WP:RS to back up the claims The Banner talk 19:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam - not a pageant but a non-notable modeling organization that selects the entrant for Miss International —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "official page" under External Links seems to be a personal page owned by a winner from 2003 (it's just a page on Facebook with no activity whatsoever), the link to missuniverse.com shows no beauty pageant activity in Estonia since 2011, the link to solaris.ee does not contain any history of Miss International Estonia as claimed, and the claims in the article about the organisation selecting participants for a number of international beauty pageants is totally unsourced. And the worst part of it is that there seems to be hundreds of "articles" like this one, about non-notable beauty pageants and non-notable beauty pageant organisations, so a major cleanup is needed. Thomas.W ^talk 20:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable modelling organization, Fails ORG + GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It's not even clear what this article is supposed to be about, "Miss International Estonia", "Estonia at Beauty Pageants", or "Estonian Beauty Association". "Estonian Beauty and Modelling Association" seems to only exist on Facebook. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:44, 2 June 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) 20:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rocketmen (film)[edit]

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

Unfortunately, I can't find a single review or substantial article on this interesting 2009 space program doc to indicate that it meets WP:NFILM. Nothing. Am I missing something? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I wasn't aware of the notability requirement, and see your point. The film recently became available as streaming on Netflix, and is featured under their "recent additions" section. Netflix shows a re-release date of 2013, though I couldn't find information about how/where it was re-released.

To defend the reliability a bit, IMDB has a page devoted to the film, and the information therein (director and such) matches the Netflix version that's streaming. While I agree there's a paucity of information with respect to reviews and suchlike, I think that may change shortly with this re-release. I'd argue (perhaps a bit of a stretch) that it's received a "commercial re-release" (Item 2, bullet 3) given a release on Netflix streaming, to a large potential audience. Full disclosure - I have no vested interest in this film - I just watched it, and noticed there wasn't a Wikipedia page. I thought it was rather well done. Victorygin1138 (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, and your article makes me want to see the film. But unfortunately IMDb really isn't considered a reliable source establishing notability, either, per WP:IMDB/RS. If it is deleted, perhaps you'd like to WP:Userfy until such time as we can find multiple reliable sources? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And yes I doubt "commercial re-release" five years on means simply appearing on Netflix. But who knows? Could be. Seems geared more for theatrical films rather than television films, which is really what this is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Keep per following reasonable comments. I am striking my "delete" Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC) Delete This UK film released in Japan simply has no English received coverage. If Japanese reviews of commentary come forward, I could change to a keep. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hey now, it's streaming on Netflix, so it's obviously available in an English format. (Edit: I see...you mean coverage insofar as press about the film. Gotcha). I think the rule that there needs to be some sort of major review is a little silly...I completely understand it's there so your average home movie uploaded to YouTube can't be labeled as a "documentary," but this is obviously a professional production. I could ask the folks at Netflix how they came across it. This link (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=https://www.historychannel.co.jp/detail.php%3Fp_id%3D00420&prev=search) (translated) looks like the Japanese version of the History channel picked it up. But, this is not my Alamo - g'ahead and delete. If someone knows Japanese, maybe they can find a review...Google is getting confused with a book of the same name, released around the same time. Victorygin1138 (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

((Edit: I did find that it grossed 1.2 million from BoxOfficeMojo - http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/intl/?page=&country=JP&wk=2009W37&id=_fROCKETMEN01 - looks like it was also released on PBS America, which looks, ironically, like the British version of PBS: http://www.tvguide.co.uk/detail/233940/106786401/rocket-men#.VVcZOvlViko). If you google "Rocketmen PBS documentary" (without quotes), you'll see that various PBS channels across the states are picking it up, too.)

I know it looks like I'm making a hard sell here, but really, I'm just awake before the kids, and just have some time to hunt around on this random documentary. :-) Victorygin1138 (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a WP:PRIMARY for some WP:V. BTW When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions, which Dale also worked on, is a good example of something that does meet NFILM. Even though there isn't a single non-primary ref on the article, when you do a Gnews search you come up with some very good results, including an Entertainment Weekly review. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it's clearly a major professional production with a mass audience, then we should WP:IAR and forgive the absence of major substantive reviews. Some significant genres, like television documentaries and children's literature pre-Internet, just aren't reviewed very much. Sometimes the scale of movie viewing or book sales, by themselves, should be enough. (This film was shown on over 100 cinema screens in Japan in 2009, and has doubtless been viewed by rather larger audiences in the years since then on television and by streaming).--Pharos (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with that, as nominator. I didn't realize about the theatrical release and I'm sure there must be Japanese reviews we cannot find. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 2 June 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) 20:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleratec[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP and hopelessly promotional. SmartSE (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all the coverage I'm seeing is press release after press release... there are a couple article and review but just not enough articles about the company itself. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:- I found The Journal, The Free Library, This Review in addition to the ones already present in the article. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Are any of those reliable sources? Even the WP disambiguation page The Journal doesn't list anything that sounds like that source. The source listed as The Free Library looks like a press release and was published in CD Computing News, which seems like an insignificant computing publication. Newtechreview.com seems to be one guy reviewing some products on a website without editorial control. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep for now, the sources above aren't great, but they're something. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck as by blocked sockpuppet. Davewild (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:CORP, tons of press releases (I count hundreds), but no actual reliable source coverage. Esquivalience ^t 00:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, my searches show a plethora of press releases especially here with other searches here, here and here found nothing significant. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

High Sabbath Adventists[edit]

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

This page appears to be largely a doctrinal essay for a small splinter group of the Seventh-day Adventists. I couldn't find any reference to them in the citations provided, and a recent set of self-published articles by the group was recently removed from the references by another user. None of my research has turned up anything to indicate they meet the criteria in WP:ORG. Bordwall(^talk⁄_ctrb) 18:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the references seem to be about them. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, it's simple propaganda. --Ron Ortiz ^{T C} 09:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article only here to promote their ideas. If there's any good content, possibly Merge with Seventh Day Adventists. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This appears to be a splinter of the Seventh Day Adventists (SDA), with slightly divergent theological views. If so, this is essentially a denomination. What is not clear to me is whether this has a significant number of adherents. If it has it should be kept, but if it is in fact a single local congregation, it should probably not be. Since the main SDA movement apparently disavows them, merger to the SDA article, save by adding a list of schismatic SDA groups (with links) ought not to be an option. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 6 June 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. Guy (Help!) 15:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Billington[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ARTIST as they have only received low quality coverage in local newspapers. SmartSE (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- Subject of the article meets WP:ARTIST#4. Five of his paintings are represented within the permanent collection of Jülich Museum [13], Germany per this source and World Arts. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 00:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:ARTIST#4? The Jülich Museum may or may not count as a notable museum, but it's clearly not "several notable galleries or museums". Colapeninsula (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shocking comments! How on earth will you consider the "Jülich Museum" non-notable simply because it has no article on the English Wikipedia when it does has an article in the dutch Wikipedia (de.m.wikipedia.org/.)? The truth is that there are multiple reliable sources that establish his notability only that they are not in english. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.rambulation.com/ is just a random blog and the analysis there is ridiculous. I don't think that world-arts meets RS either - it's clearly autobiographical. His work is in 'a museum' but it's not an art collection that is at all noteworthy. SmartSE (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth will you consider "World Art" unreliable source? Will you also consider the The Art House Gallery, Gallery Liverpool Achieve, Daylight Project unreliable? Perhaps we may need to take the sources to the RS Notice board. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because: World Arts gives you the artist the opportunity to advertise, promote, display and sell your work with no commission fees. The first two aren't unreliable, but they're of little use to demonstrate notability as they are just routine exhibition listings or selling his work. The daylightproject is a site run by Velux as PR. SmartSE (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per these prices on a gallery page. A notable artist would be more expensive. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- The impression that I get from the article is that he is an ~~amateur~~, who manages to produce enough to have occasional exhibitions. However, I may be wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now neutral -- I have struck through "delete" above, partly as a result of a representation to me by the subject threatening a libel suit. I nevertheless consider that my "vote" was fair comment, based on what appeared in the article at the time. I have amended Juelich in the article to Jülich, the usual spelling where diacriticals can be used. While Jülich has an article, it museum does not; at least not in the English WP. I do not know whether it does in the German WP; it may do. That fact that Billington has got several paintings into a foreign gallery might point to his notability. I may have been wrong in suggesting that he was another of the host of amateurs, who try to gain fame by having a WP-article, articles that are rightly deleted. If the achievements listed in the article for a man now aged about 60 had been spread over a career of (say) 40 years, I would certainly question his notability. At present the article says nothing about what he did up to 2008. I would certainly suggest that the article still needs improvement, but that is not a reason for deletion. I am therefore changing my position to neutral. Billington this self-authored link says that he is a full time artist, so that my statement that he is an amateur must be wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another run-of-the-mill painter who tries to promote his work here. The four or five paintings that are in the [Jülich Museum were commissioned for an exhibition of 19th-century landscape paintings to which Billington's modern "copies" (in fact ridicilous simplifications, look at "Lempertz" here) were added for contrast. No other museum on earth apparently has acquired any such artworks in the meanwhile, and thus he fails WP:ARTIST #4d. Kraxler (talk) 17:25, 8 June 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fugenx[edit]

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

Non notable company. Kavdiamanju (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Yes, it's in those few listings, but among hundreds of companies, I'd only consider that significant if a secondary source felt it appropriate to report the accolades. I did a ProQuest firehose search of 50+ databases and only got minor and press release hits. The app company had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. None of its apps have received enough reliable coverage to warrant so much as a sentence... so the article can't even act as a holding area for barely notable apps. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 02:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Here are the citations which I found out about the company: [14], [15]. Mr RD (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is okay, but the first one isn't even an article... – czar 16:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source is very reliable and trusted. Mr RD (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about the same source, then yeah, it looks like less an article, and more like a headline with no real content.. Sergecross73 msg me 00:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or move to userspace. The company seems official and legit but it might not be good enough for an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchyte (talk • contribs) 07:11, 27 May 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte, as I've said about your !votes in other video game AfDs, "seeming official" is not a policy-backed argument and counts for nothing at AfD. The question is whether or not the article has reliable sources such that we can write an article about it. In this case, there's nothing. (Also I don't think the link to WP:LEGIT helps your point...) – czar 12:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although if kept, it should be moved to Fungenx Technologies, which appears to be its actual name. No in depth coverage whatsoever, no reliable sources, fails WP:NCORP. mikeman67 (talk) 15:51, 9 June 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 Soft delete. Article may be restored by any administrator upon request. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Yates[edit]

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

Mr Yates had a long run as the title character in the West End musical Billy Elliot the Musical. Other than references to the musical, there are scant references in reliable sources for this actor. Shirt58 (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - as far as I can tell he was an understudy for this production, as he was not one of the three "main" boys who received the Olivier Awards during this period (if I am reading it correctly). He has been on some notable TV shows, but there's just insufficient coverage of him outside of the 2005 articles when he got the role. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, only James Lomas, George Maguire and Liam Mower received jointly in 2006 the Olivier Award for Best Actor in a Musical for the Billy role. The article says that in June 2006 he replaced Liam Mower, I presume full-time, after standing in off and on between December 2005 and March 2006. Kraxler (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:06, 1 June 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. Davewild (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Bin Sulaiman[edit]

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

Pure promotion. Jacona (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite – this article fails to mention his main claim to fame - going to prison and being forced to return $14M he apparently wrongfully obtained. Significant international coverage over the years -[16], [17], [18], [19]. He's out of prison and back in a prestigious position - [20]. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Tolibao[edit]

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

Non notable and hardly referenced. Fiddle Faddle 10:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on this article discussing his fame and this mention here and here in USA Today, he's quite well known in the comic book industry and meets GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note See also Wikipedia:School and university projects/Philippines artists, of which this is part. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does that explain why the AFD notice on the article is removed so often, but that the student(s) do not come here to offer opinions? Fiddle Faddle 14:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess so - likely inexperienced editors who don't understand the AfD process. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:03, 1 June 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) 20:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fragrance Direct[edit]

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

A7,G11 with no independent sources created by their PR company. Bazj (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A couple trivial source articles, but nothing substantial. Companies tend to start attracting source material at around the 100-employee mark, but their notability and level of importance to the project is still so trivial, I will usually lean towards delete if evidence of notability is not contained in the article. CorporateM (Talk) 07:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources in the article, and claim to fame is that the had a top 20 retweet during the 2014 FIFA World Cup. Well,... Kraxler (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leatherface (film)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM. Per future films:

Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun. Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.

All reliably sourced information can be found at The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise)#Future already, which is pretty much casting information. Major issues with the article, other than the lack of significant coverage, is that "Leatherface" has never been officially announced as the title of the film, and there is no reliable source to verify that. The "principal photography" date is sourced to an unreliable website that has not editorial oversight or meet the criteria set at WP:RS. Attempted to redirect the article title, but the creating editor keeps reverting it. I would do a merge proposal, but there is nothing to merge (because it already exists on the other page) and there is no guarantee that "Leatherface" will ultimately be the title of the film. Needs to stay on the franchise page until significant coverage is created ~~after filming starts~~. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dread Central has some location images and a teaser poster that has the title as "Leatherface". The title looks like it's official, although as with any film this could still be changed prior to its official release. Bloody Disgusting has also written an article that uses this title and both sites are considered to be reliable sources on Wikipedia. I'm still looking for sources that would confirm that filming has commenced, but these sources would confirm that as of this point in time Leatherface is the correct title. If the name is changed prior to its release date then this can always be changed in the article- that's not really a biggie. Films change names all the time and we refer to them as "originally titled ___" or "also known under its working title of _____". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to check the stars' and directors' social media feeds- those are usually some of the easiest ways to check and see if filming has started. It looks like everyone is there at the filming location per the location shots in the DC article, but that doesn't mean that filming has officially started. It looks to be a pre-filming party, which would mean that filming should start very, very soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If we can confirm that this is Jessica Madsen (one of the actresses in the film) then this would confirm that filming has begun. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This Bloody Disgusting source confirms that filming has begun. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I struck my comment about it starting film. It still fails significant coverage criteria, as the future film criteria specifically say that basic announcements of casting or starting of filming is not enough to justify an article. All of this information fits into the paragraph that already exists on the franchise page. Since there no rush and we have 2 notability guides that say this article fails...it really shouldn't exist right now. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that! I didn't realize it'd been crossed out until after I posted that last bit! I do see your point though about the low amount of coverage, which is a little surprising to say the least. I'll see if I can dig anything up, though. (I really wish I had a good TCM pun to throw in there.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Good luck. When I have searched it was largely been basic casting announcements and the inclusion/dropping out of writers and directors. I'm surprised they actually started filming, and although Bloody-Disgusting says "leatherface" that's largely a rumored titled for the film. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's being thrown about in a lot of reliable sources so far and the first Dread Central link ([21]) has a teaser poster with the name on it, so it doesn't look like it's just a rumored title. I'd say that for now it looks like it is the official working title, so if the consensus is to delete/redirect then I'd support using this name as a redirect. 05:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep- official title. Dread Central has a picture of the poster in a magazine from Fantastic Fest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you finding sources to verify the title and start of filming. Have you found anything that actually covers the filming to provide that significant coverage? I haven't found anything, and for a Chainsaw film that's sort of surprising considering how much coverage there was for the last one. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The movie has already begun filming. And has received a ton of coverage in reliable sources (just looking at the article will show you that). It is absurd that someone nominated this in the first place. Koala15 (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you must not be reading WP:NOTFILM or WP:GNG, because you wouldn't be claiming that it has received a "ton of coverage". NOTFILM specifically says that basic announcements for casting and start of filming are not sufficient to justify notability. So, just because it started filming does not mean that it is notable, especially when there is barely any coverage on the actual filming. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until more content is possible than announcements of cast and crew positions, ~~or unless the production itself can be shown to be notable~~ so keep. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry anon IP, but its production has such coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  - @MichaelQSchmidt: Could you name a source covering more than just things like casting announcements? Any coverage of the actual production? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:NF. The production has been receiving more-than-trivial coverage since 2013,[22][23][24] to meet WP:GNG and with filming confirmed, WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met. The project is served by having this remain and be improved over time through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot link to Google and say that it's "more than trivial coverage". IMDb is not a reliable source for news either. Announcements in the "Google News" are still announcements. You may want to brush up on the definition of "significant coverage". All the production section has is the announcement of writers and cast. That is in no way significant coverage of the film, since all of that existed before the film even started production. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 10:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... "is no way significant coverage of the film, since all of that existed before the film even started production." Huh? It IS coverage of the film's plans and production, can be used to inform our readers, and is exactly the expected coverage for a film to be made... and NOW that filming has commenced, production meets notability criteria just as WP:NFF requests. Are you somehow suggesting that every sourced pre-production section in film articles on Wikipedia should be eliminated? Topic coverage is topic coverage. I am sorry you may not have looked at any of the multiple articles that came up in the proffered google search, and sorrier still that, although "IT" is not considered reliable for IT's own news, you apparently did not look at the partial news coverage links listed at IMDB... as THEY would be generally reliable even if the IMDB as the place they are found is not. As the current article here is already overwhelmingly sourced, I chose to not over-source it. However, in my sensing a misunderstanding of WP:NFF (and the related WP:WIP and WP:PERFECT), perhaps when I return home this evening from a project, I might go ahead and source the ever-living-heck out of the article. Unused so far are many articles that speak toward the project's pre-production planning and choices. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you apparently cannot find it. PER NOTFILM: "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." and per GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention." - Casting information and announcement of writers/directors, which is what is on this page, is just trivial mentioning. There is nothing actually discussing the production of the film. Thus, it fails the GNG and NOTFILM. I think you are mistaking multiple sources for significant coverage. If 10 people report that Stephen Dorff is in the film, that doesn't mean that is significant coverage. Significant coverage is based on the amount of content, not the number of people reporting it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV due to numerous periodicals covering the development and the casting for the film. There is not trivial mention here; WP:SIGCOV has a footnote showing an example of a trivial mention. Articles that headline Leatherface is not trivial, even if the same general details are being reported. Also, it has verifiably crossed the threshold of having started filming, which means that a concrete product is underway. I've never seen "the production itself is notable" to mean that we need significant coverage about the filming itself even though we already have significant coverage about the preparation for it. To me, it is intended to guard against having articles about films in production that nobody has been covering at all. I think it may be worth re-wording that sentence, because for non-blockbuster films, there can be significant coverage leading up to the start of the filming (reporting on all the pieces being pulled together), followed by a lull in coverage (maybe there is some local coverage where a film is shot), then more significant coverage as the film comes out. It is detrimental to just delete this article due to lack of filming detail only to restore it later. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Erik II:, you know that being the title of a periodical doesn't mean that the content within is significant. It's about what they are talking about, not naming the article. Let's look at what Michael provided from Google News: 1428 Elm.com looks totally legit as a source, is basically publishing an image from a magazine and rumors about the film. There are a total of 9 results for 'Texas CHainsaw Massacre 4', and all (save for maybe 1) are unreliable sources posting on the same information. A switch to "Leatherface 2015" yields a total of 15 results, almost all of which are just casting updates. Where is the actual significant coverage on the film? Since when did casting information become significant coverage? If it's not notable before a film starts filming (which NOTFILM specifically says that it isn't), which is it all of a sudden significant just because we have 1 additional line that filming has started? Why do we have a statement that "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines."? If the production itself must be notable, then that means we need coverage beyond simply announcing who is in the film or who is writing the film. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - How are you defining "trivial mention"? WP:SIGCOV has a footnote that says a band mentioned in a sentence in a biography would be considered a trivial mention. WP:SIGCOV also says the topic does not need to be the main topic of the source material, so the reliable sources that have articles about this film's development and casting more than meet the criteria. I don't see why this information cannot be considered significant coverage. The language of WP:SIGCOV indicates that we want at least partial attention by sources to the topic, which we have here. Regarding that sentence in the guideline, it is unbelievably old, being added in July 2006 as seen here, referencing WP:CRYSTAL (however it was worded back then) and asking some key questions. To me, it seems like a long-term straggler that could be removed as no longer applicable. Coverage of preparation for the film before the start of filming should count toward the topic because it shows as least partial attention toward it. Technically, we could have stand-alone articles based on pre-filming coverage, but we established a consensus not to do that because we know from experience with this particular subject matter that there can be coverage about a film that never gets underway. When it does get underway, that coverage becomes meaningful. The history of how it came together matters because there will actually be a tangible product. Also, for this particular franchise film, I find it unrealistic to believe that coverage would just stop here. It seems detrimental to delete this article just because it does not have additional detail yet. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm defining "trivial" as anything that is nothing more than a passing announcement. Significant coverage would be more elaborate coverage of a topic, not that it has to be the main focus of the article. Announcements are not significant coverage. Yes, the history of how it came together is important in the overall look of the production, but it hardly establishes notability for a topic when all you have are announcements of an event occurring and not a single source detailing anything beyond that. There is no source covering this film beyond saying who is in it and rumors about what it is about. I cannot see where that is hardly significant coverage. SIGCOV says, "The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.") is plainly trivial." is very much on the same line as a one sentence mention in an article that Stephen Dorff is in the movie. My question has always been, how does casting information make a production notable? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      (chuckle) Then by your wish for sources offering more than trivial "announcements", we have multiple sources available which deal with this film and its plans directly and in detail. Thus we have notability for the topic of the production and plans and background of a project which has begun filming. So, as you so generously shared with us up at the top right below your deletion statement as if it somehow forbade an article, WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met.... like it or not... misinterpret it or not. And while "substantive" is not a guideline nor policy mandate, we do have enough sources substantive in content.... and guideline does not in any way or form mandate that newer sources must be substantive. The requirement under SIGCOV is that sources address a topic directly and in enough detail so that readers do not have to use original research. THAT we have. And even though you have made it point to WP:BLUD every !vote that disagrees with you, it looks like a consensus based upon applicable guideline is being built for a keep. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      “we have multiple sources available which deal with this film and its plans directly and in detail.” For instance? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Bignole, the footnote example says that a single sentence in the source, a biography, should not be used to determine that a band is notable. Sources like Deadline.com and The Hollywood Reporter are not one-sentence aside mentions like the band example is. The two aforementioned sources provide full attention toward the developing film and outline the framework of that project. The notability guidelines basically say that if sources take an interest in a given topic, then Wikipedia should most likely have an article about it. For future films, we've exercised caution because we know developments can fall apart and have opposed pre-filming coverage if filming has not yet started. When filming starts, the chances of a final product are much greater than before, which is why we work with this threshold. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point of clarification: Is pre-production (casting, etc.) considered to be part of “the production” per WP:NFF, or does that only include Filmmaking#Production? (Perhaps this should be asked on WT:NF instead? But it’s directly relevant here, so.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of a topic is coverage of a topic. And the backstory of how a film came into being is suitable. Even though reasonable exceptions have been allowed to it, WP:NFF was written to keep Wikipedia from being overwhelmed by well-sourced articles on films that might not ever get made despite the topic otherwise meeting WP:GNG. But as the topic of this film's planning and production meets WP:GNG, and it IS being filmed, we now have guideline and policy acceptable notability for inclusion. And we can expect a lot more for further expansion and improvement to this article. Sure, you can go ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film but as two of the project's coordinators or former coordinators have already spoken up here, that might be seen as unnecessary canvassing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, the originally "suggested" redirect to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise)#Future does not help our readers, as that section is woefully out of date. When a film begins shooting, a spin-out article is acceptable and welcome... and has happened here many times. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think you’ve answered my question at all… “the topic of this film's production meets WP:GNG”—Again, what exactly do you mean by “production”? Do you mean the phase that comes after pre-production, or the entire filmmaking project as a whole, or something different? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under MOS:FILM#Production, "production" is an inclusive term not an exclusive. We are not Merriam-Webster, and that word does not restrict article content to or mean "only stuff dealing directly with the actual filming"... which is why many film articles in Wikipedia contain sections dealing specifically with creation, planning, writing, casting, and the eventual making of those films... information included under MOS:FILM to increase our reader's understanding-in-depth of the overall film topic. All aspects of the topic of the creation, planning, writing, casting, and eventual making of a film fall under its "production" processes. Since the topic of the plans for production of a potential film Texas Chainsaw 4 (now Leatherface), have been discussed directly and in detail for many years, its coverage means it can and should be spoken about somewhere per policy... and it was "mentioned" (although very poorly and very briefly) in the nom's suggested redirect. As no film is 100% until the box office opens and folks actually watch it, what is restricted by WP:NFF is that we should probably not have a separate article until we have confirmation of filming, and we now have such confirmation. So since the topic meets WP:GNG, now that filming has commenced a separate article is now merited... one which informs readers of all the aspects surrounding the topic of the creation, planning, writing, casting, and eventual making of this film. It's what we are here to do. And yes, in this unfinished encyclopedia which admits it is imperfect, the article is far from complete. More to do... more to do. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

“Under MOS:FILM#Production, "production" is an inclusive term not an exclusive. … that word does not restrict article content to or mean ‘only stuff dealing directly with the actual filming’”—You are exactly as free to infer that from the guideline as written as the nom is to infer the opposite. Hopefully we’ll get a consensus (with more than two participants) on that question, soon. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes GNG. Coverage is coverage. I don't see why the guideline states that articles in filming are usually not notable, but this is certainly an exception with the amount of sources on the topic. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, EDDY. Even with reasonable exceptions having been allowed, guideline suggests (not commands) that we wait until filming actually begins before having a separate article. WP:NFF is written how it is because, even with extensive coverage, planned projects might sometimes not be completed. Of course, even before filming begins, information can be added to and sourced in related articles. But as we have both topic coverage and confirmation of filming, inclusion criteria are met.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:11, 8 June 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. Seriously? This is an article that serves only to promote. If anyone not linked to the firm wants to start again then they can have the deleted content but the sources are not independent and the editors of the article - and this AfD - mainly seem to be connected to the subject. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Odoo[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:CORP - while there is some sources, these are mostly passing mentions and interviews, as opposed to in depth coverage. Mdann52 (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Odoo is the new name of OpenERP (it is a redirection). currently this is one of the best open source business software on the planet with millions of users. A Google search gives more than 600k results for either Odoo or OpenERP, from thousands of sources (keep WP:NTEMP in mind). A search for books gives hundreds of books about OpenERP/Odoo. Google Trends shows the history of the project's name and popularity. More random examples: Odoo was recently selected in the top 5 project management tools for 2015 on opensource.com, in the Best Linux and Open Source Apps for the Enterprise in 2015 of linux.com, nominated for the Deloitte Technology Fast 50 2014. The product also won a BOSSIE Award two years in a row, under its former name, OpenERP, in 2012 and 2013. According to WP:NNC and WP:ARTN, the above is sufficient to establish notability. --Princethezeroth (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)— Princethezeroth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: Odoo is notable and has a significant coverage in third party sources. Odoo has references with sources like European Commission and universities. They received the EY Promising Enterprise of The Year Award Here are a few press coverage that Odoo get over the past 15 days just in Belgium (Head Quarter of Odoo): Le Soir, main news paper of belgium, VRT, Vers L'avenir, CanalZ: belgian television, RTBF, Canvas 0:50 - 5:58 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpodoo (talk • contribs) 06:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC) — Fpodoo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: This is one of the most installed ERP package in the world (more than 2000 new installations per day based on company data, installed by Odoo (Inc.) or through 570+ partners integrators & non partners. For comparison, a quick search on Google trends will show that Odoo (former name: openerp)is as popular as Netsuite, a half a billion dollar company with 2500 employees. It is as well one of the largest & most active open source projects in Python, with more than 3 millions lines of codes across all repositories , even larger than MySQL based on codebase size. As a note, Python is the 3rd most popular language in the world based on Github statistics. It has been widely covered in the press. Odoo is taught at numerous schools and universities. Many courses can be found on independent sources such as Coursehero. Odoo is the subject of many books sold for instance on Amazon. Net, Odoo has more notability & independent coverage than most commercial/proprietary ERPs and more than any other Finance/Management open source project Alexvdm01 (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)— Alexvdm01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: This is a rename from OpenERP and enjoys a significant installed base. Whoever put this up for deletion doesn't know he/she is doing. I suspect a Troll. Lets mark MS for deletion next. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijnd (talk • contribs) 13:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 2 June 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) 20:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yukiko Seki[edit]

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

Only coverage are basic links to her fight record. She lost 2/3 of her MMA fights and doesn't have any fights that qualify as top tier (only Jewels title fights count) so she also fails WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant fighter in Japan. Different criteria should also be made for womens MMA as they do not have as many strong organizations that represent their fighters. 71.183.12.120 (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to make this fighter notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is my mistake, I should not have created this article. I missed that Shooto fights do not count toward notability for female fighters. Kevlar (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She has no top tier fights, a poor overall record, and no significant coverage. Papaursa (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010^Talk 01:07, 8 June 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) 20:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Jauncey[edit]

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

Coverage is just routine sports results and he doesn't meet any of the notability criteria for kickboxers at WP:KICK. Being ranked #5 by a promotion (Glory) doesn't show notability when he's not ranked in the world top 10. His titles are from minor organizations are also don't show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. The Glory rankings are not independent and of course are stilted towards their own people.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jauncy is featured in the upcoming GLORY contender tournament and has been a mainstay of the promotion, this should be enough to reserve his page from deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.225.34 (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Glory rankings are only for their own fighters, so they're not just tilted they're exclusive.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreliable sources. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a kickboxer he doesn't meet any of the notability criteria at WP:KICK. There is no significant independent coverage of him. All of his coverage is from the network broadcasting his fight, Glory itself, youtube, or a couple of routine sports reports. In other words, he doesn't meet any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 20:42, 6 June 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) 20:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brianne Barry[edit]

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

Has not competed at the highest level and lacks the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Finishing 5th at the University Games is not enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- Finished 3rd at the Francophone Games. Will participate at the 2015 Pan American Games. National champion and established wrestler. Ranked in the world’s best 20 wrestlers in her weight category. Meet all WP:GNG. TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC) ; CTV London: Brianne Barry headed to Pan Am Games ... http://london.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=587000[reply]
Delete - Does not pass the notability guidelines. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Francophone Games is hardly the highest level of competition and merely competing at the Pan American Games is not sufficient to show notability. According to the latest world adult rankings[25], she is not in the top 20. She has a good chance to become notable by making the 2016 Olympics, but this article appears to have been created WP:TOOSOON. I have no objections to saving this article in user space. I don't think that local TV coverage ("local wrestler is heading for the Pan-Am games") is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:54, 6 June 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. Concerns of arbitrariness and provable significance. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest European law firms (excluding UK) (2012)[edit]

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

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

Article was moved (by me) during AFD to more general title "List of largest European law firms (excluding UK)". --do ncr am 16:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a WP:COPYVIO because it says that it is "taken from the European 100 survey released by the UK legal magazine The Lawyer." I do not think that this is in public domain because I get hit by a paywall when trying to access the data. My second point is that even if this isn't a WP:COPYVIO, I don't think that this is notable. I could possibly see notability in a national or even a European Union list, but it seems so trivial to pick and choose what countries to include or exclude. Tavix | Talk 00:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and probably modify. Make it about all European law firms (including U.K.), say. For covering law firms, we need list-articles like this. And one source about the top 100 as of one point in time is not good, we should get and use more sources. But the list-article topic is notable...there are multiple articles and reports about top law firms in each of many countries or larger areas including Europe. Rather than having AfDs about individual firms' articles, best to have list-articles to which individual firms can be redirected. Avoid any appearance of copyvio by changing the focus to be not about 2012 list, but rather about top/biggest law firms in Europe, period. So some firm that once was huge but then later went out of business would be included (as has happened, I recall reading about, for one huge New York City-based firm).

The issues here--including some about law firms--is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Common invalid "keep" arguments for commercial organizations. Especially please see about law firms at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#about notability of law firms, where Piotrus and Fred Bauder and me and perhaps more, are discussing. A main point that I make there is (with emphasis included in original):

There should be a list-article covering the at least the top tier ones in each nation or major group, showing redlinks where new articles are needed. All in the top tier achieve at least "list-item notability" (a lower standard than notability for having a separate article). A firm's row in the list-article would serve as a reasonable target for a redirect, as a nicer AFD outcome than outright deletion. And the list-article would help rationalize the process for all editors interested in the topic area.

So, keep this list-article and work with it. Excluding U.K. or not, relying overly much on one source for one year, etc., are good appropriate content issues and worth discussing, working out at Talk page. --do ncr am 03:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This satisfies LISTN, at least with modification. The parent topic is European law firms (including the UK) or continental law firms (which can be distinguished from anglo-american law firms due to the presence of continental law, the absence of the English language, their tendency to be smaller [26] etc). Those are both notable as a group. And LISTN says we can spin off daughter lists without regard to notability. There's nothing wrong having a list of the largest by revenue, and nothing wrong with having multiple lists for particular dates, such as annual lists, provided they can be sourced, since the ranking will change over time. As for copyright, I was under the impression that non-creative lists weren't eligible for it. You might consider removing the last three columns of the table, to reduce it to rank, name and revenue. In any event, you need to actually look at the source to ascertain whether there is a copyvio. James500 (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's probably not a copyvio as it's directory information (first 100 companies in a given sector within geographic area by turnover).
However, it's only a list of "largest" law firms in "continental Europe" according to a single source - 'The Lawyer' trade magazine. The arbitrary restrictions such as coverage and equating of "largest" with turnover (different from growth and unrelated to verifiable significance), are a consequence.

It doesn't meet WP:LISTN, having been compiled using ill-defined terms like "continental Europe", making it arbitrary by definition. We can't be sure what definition the magazine had in mind but going by our article on it the list likely excludes at least 5 European Union countries: Malta, Ireland, United Kingdom, Sweden and Finland.

Try making an article about a general company and saying on its AfD it should stay because "it makes insert-bigdollar-figure-here and to prove it's ClearlyNotable here's cites to company reports plus trade directories/lists". Consensus has consistently rejected unevidenced and inherent claims of notability (WP:ORGSIG and WP:NRVE). Yet that's what's waved as justification for a lot of the articles constructed from and linked in these law firms in X list-articles. Essentially it's resulting in unapproved formulaic stubs which the community has said said we do not want – see WP:MASSCREATION policy.

Discussions linked above show this list and siblings are being used to "industrially" create standalone pages without regard to in-depth secondary sourcing. If a law firm is notable in Wikipedia terms, multiple third-party & independent reliable secondary sources will have written about the organisation in depth.

I see no significant evidence this List is significant in its own right, widely written about, had major influence on attitude or approach to any particular thing nor any other verifiable impact either. At most, a link to or citation of the original trademag article belongs in a WikiProject 'possible resources' subpage, with the understanding mere inclusion therein doesn't warrant creating articles on the listitems. Find sources, then use them to write articles. I also question appropriateness of duplicating a magazine's yearly list (multiple years have been re-created here), even if it is permissible under copyright law.

I'm unconvinced by suggestions of altering the awkward scope to incorporate additional hoped-for sources. It wouldn't address the problems above and may prove not possible where different compilers draw up their listing according to different criteria and interpret data in different potentially unspecified ways. –146.199.151.33 (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ORG applies to individual organisations, it does not apply to lists of organisations, which are governed by LISTN. This list does not need to be "significant in its own right, widely written about, had major influence on attitude or approach to any particular thing nor any other verifiable impact either". What matters is whether continental law firms are notable as a group, which they obviously are. The extent of continental Europe is not particularly ill defined. Its boundaries are the limit of European Russia in the East and the Mediterranean in the South. If Sweden, Finland or any other relevant country has been missed out, all we have to do is ascertain the revenue of their largest law firms and add the missing entries to the list. And we could, in any event, change the scope of the list to the EU or etc. Whether editors are creating inappropriate articles about individual law firms has no bearing whatsoever on the appropriateness of this list. Such articles would be created, and just as frequently, whether this list exists or not. (If anything, this list might actually discourage the creation of articles on non notable firms that don't meet its size threshold). In practice consensus at AfD favours the retention of articles on organisations that exceed a certain size: the guidelines are supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive, and we can in any event fall back on NRVE ('sources are likely to exist') and IAR ('guideline is detrimental'). Whilst revenue isn't the only measure of 'size', that particular issue can be dealt with by a simple page move (add the words "by revenue" to the page name). James500 (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - This is clear promotion. Article was made by SPA that made this list, edited other lists and also did an article for a law firm that - surprise! - was on these lists. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This list is manifestly not promotion. Having a "list of largest X" is not inherently promotional, irrespective of what X is. There is no POV that I can discern. Whether the creator of this article is an SPA, and the nature of his editing in other articles, has no bearing on whether this list is promotional, which is determined only by the contents of this article. WP:ATA says that any argument based on who or what the creator of the article is, and so forth, is always invalid. James500 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding the comment above by 146.199.151.33 about Sweden and Finland being excluded, it actually suffices to look at the lists it to see that they are not. Several firms from each country are included. --Hegvald (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like a pretty blatant example of over listification. NickCT (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? How so? The wikipedia essay to which you link gives several potential reasons to deem something "over-listified", but not one of the reasons seem to apply here. --do ncr am 16:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Overlistification talks about "non-notable intersections" in a couple different contexts. WP:LISTN talks about this in terms of cross-categorization. The basic rule is that to have a list of something, that something has to be notable. In other words, "largest European law firms (excluding UK)" has to be a notable subject in and of itself. It obviously it isn't. NickCT (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The group of firms obviously is notable because The Lawyer produced a list of them. And that is significant coverage in an independent, reliable secondary source. Overlistification is for cross categorizations we have invented ourselves, not those recognised by that type of source. James500 (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The quality of delete arguments in this AFD seems poor. Accusations of copy-vio seem to be wrong. Accusation of arbitrariness in excluding UK from rest of Europe seems misguided: U.K. follows common law tradition while continental Europe generally does not. No SPA present and argument of SPA-ness is specious. Not promotional. On the Keep side are pretty good arguments that this does satisfy LISTN and that this helps development of Wikipedia coverage in the general topic area of law firms in Europe. I do happen to think that the 2012- and publisher-specific aspects of the list should be changed...it should be broader in scope and use the one publication as just one source...but that change is for discussion at article Talk, is not for AFD. I hope/expect the closer will take quality of arguments properly into account. --do ncr am 16:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I have boldly moved the article to the more general title "List of largest European law firms (excluding UK)". --do ncr am 16:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - do ncr am's argument seems pretty poor. He's misinterpreted and misunderstood the delete arguments, and has mistakenly suggested keep arguments seem to have a stronger position. NickCT (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this isn't a copyvio, then I want evidence that The Lawyer gives express permission to replicate their list. If not, we can't just "take" their "European 100" survey and reuse it. It's the same reason we can't have a yearly list for the Time 100. Also, per WP:LISTN: "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." I haven't seen independent reliable sources on a list of European law firms per year by revenue excluding UK. Like I said earlier, I do think a list of law firms by nation is notable. But this isn't it. Tavix | Talk 22:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. The "list topic" is continental law firms. That is the group. This is a daughter list of the list of continental law firms, and LISTN says we can spin those off without regard to notability. And, even if I was wrong about that, the article in "The Lawyer" is significant coverage of the group of firms here listed. If there is a professionally published list, that is exactly the sort of coverage LISTN is looking for. And it is the group of firms that has to be notable, not the list. James500 (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly not "continental Europe" as there are several entries from Ireland and one from Cyprus as well. Like the title says, the subject is "European law firms (excluding UK)." Since I'm still not seeing sources, my previous comments are still applicable. Tavix | Talk 00:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James500 stated "this is a daughter list of the list of continental law firms"? Where is that parent? There is List of largest European law firms which merely provides links to separate list of the 2005, 2009, 2011, 2012 top firms (top 100 now, fewer earlier), but there is now single overall list of European law firms. I think there should be one, and I suggest making this one it (and i moved it to a suitable name already). The one list probably should contain any firm included in any one of those top firms as of YR ones, and can even give comments e.g. "Firm X, ranked 7 in 2012 per Source, was largest in 2011" for those having big changes. Or have a column on evidence of largeness and list "#1 in 2012 ($40 zillion) / #7 in 2011 ($50 zillion)" and cover defunct ones "#17 in 2009; merged into Firm Y in 2010". This is then clearly not just copying one source's list in same order as that source. Frankly I think the separate year lists should be "deleted" by redirection to this one list; they don't add much now and all info can be included into one column in the one big list of European firms. I think/hope we are closer to agreement than it has seemed. That is to say I suggest amending this AFD to consider them all, or just agreeing that the redirecting of other ones should be done. I think the rankings year by year are likely to be somewhat bogus as based on this source's rough estimate of revenues from the outside (I assume no one really knows all these separate numbers). A somewhat arbitrary order created by imperfect estimations should not be enshrined in the encyclopedia. One list, however, is a reasonable split from the worldwide "List of law firms" at Lists_of_companies#Law_firms like other continents are split off. Is there any other area which includes multiple separate year articles (there is none at the top level)? Maybe Tavix and other editors would be supportive of this? How would I signify this opinion, would voting "Merge" be more descriptive (and is that an option?). --do ncr am 17:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are these numbers not taken, by the magazine, from accounts the firms are required to publish, or from numbers communicated upon request to the magazine by the firm? There are sources discussing revenue surveys eg [27]. Perhaps the answer is given by something like that. James500 (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Responding to James500, the revenues of law firms are not generally reported. Publicly traded firms are required to report financial statements, in any reasonable stock market setting in any country, but law firms are seldom publicly traded. Law firms are typically partnerships. Any magazine that reports a ranking by revenues is relying upon voluntary reporting and estimates to fill in the gaps. The gaps will be big. This is like Fortune magazine's ranking of the world's richest persons ...it is an art not a science...it's a game. Perhaps if the UK magazine The Lawyer has been running its listing for a long time, and the ranking has some marketing value, then perhaps some firms covered and ranked lower than they should be will choose to come forward with their revenues, but there's no guarantee, no auditing process, no assurance that any ranking is correct. So, Wikipedia should not unthinkingly put forward as encyclopedic "truth" any ranking in any one year. What we can do is report on apparently large or otherwise salient law firms, as reported in sources.

About other sources:

Chambers and Partners is one major source ranking individual lawyers and ranking firms and ranking law firm networks. For example:
- Chambers and Partners review about top law firms ranked into "bands" 1, 2, 3, for specialty of Banking and Finance, for the Eastern European region
- Chambers and Partners about "band 1" law firm networks in Europe

Legal 500's methodology, "explained" for its Europe list here and for its U.S. list here is that it surveys/contacts all the firms and, then, voila, by its internal black-box process, comes out with its rankings. Happily they self-report that they are able to "properly assess" the law firms... "Our team of experienced researchers – which includes both qualified journalists and lawyers – spend several months each year conducting in-depth research into the market. The primary source of our information is the law firms themselves, and the information they provide is often not for public consumption. This allows us to properly assess them against one another, practice area by practice area. We also gather feedback from peers and clients to assess their overall visibility and reputation. The process culminates in detailed rankings and editorial, providing buyers of legal services with an objective analysis of the US market that is updated annually. - See more at: http://www.legal500.com/assets/pages/united-states/united-states.html#sthash.opfvGlp9.dpuf "

Law firm sources are also discussed also at:
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#about notability of law firms (within [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ius Laboris) a still-open discussion
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebalu & Lule, an AFD that was closed Keep

To the closer, while one reasonable thing to do here is to say "no consensus", that is not really helpful. It would be better to say the consensus is to keep one large list, but to merge/delete the separate year lists. So, "Keep" on the specific article AFD'd which has already be renamed to be more general. --do ncr am 17:40, 6 June 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) 20:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masako Yoshida[edit]

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

I don't see any top tier fights to meet WP:NMMA. Jewels fights are only notable for title bouts and she doesn't seem to have any. There is no significant coverage, just links to things like fight records. Mdtemp (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again women should have different criteria for keep. Significant woman fighter from another nation. 71.183.12.120 (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are established notability criteria for women MMA fighters and many have met them. Do you have a policy based reason for keeping this article or is this just WP:ILIKEIT? Papaursa (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MMA. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is my mistake, I should not have created this article. I missed that Shooto fights do not count toward notability for female fighters. Kevlar (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject has no top tier fights and no significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 20:15, 6 June 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. Consensus is that the article meets the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Narayan Sadashiv Hosmane[edit]

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

This biography of Mr. Hosmane looks notable. However, a careful review will reveal that that's not really the case. The page claims that he received the coveted Humboldt Research Award for senior scientists twice. There is no reliable source to support such claims. All the other honors and awards received by him are non-notable. The biography was created by Mr. Hosmane himself.[28] One Wikipedian did protested.[29] Mr. Hosmane is not a top cited chemist and he has used Wikipedia for self promotion. Zenqueue (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His employer's faculty directory (reliable for this sort of factual data) lists him as "Distinguished Research Professor" and "Inaugural Board of Trustees Professor" [30]. That should be enough for WP:PROF#C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF#C5 tells us that The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon) is eligible for a Wikipedia page. It also tells us that Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Named chairs at other institutions are not necessarily sufficient to establish notability. Northern Illinois University is not a major research university. If he were a Distinguished Professor at a major university, e.g. Northwestern University, your argument would have been satisfactory. However, that's not the case. Also, Mr. Hosmane created his own biography on May 25, 2008 (that's a clear infringement of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). He may have became "notable" because of his Wikipedia page! This is entirely possible. People use blogs to promote themselves or their products. However, if you have a Wikipedia page, people tend to take you more seriously. Zenqueue (talk) 07:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2008 is a long time ago, for Wikipedia. We don't choose to keep or delete articles as a way to punish their editors for long-ago misbehavior, but on the basis of whether the article subject is notable. NIU may not be an R1 university but it is listed in the second tier of List of research universities in the United States. And I would be extremely surprised if NIU paid any attention to Wikipedia in granting him those titles. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the article subject is not notable. There are so many people who have held a named chair appointment or Distinguished Professor appointment at second tier research universities and many of them don't have a Wikipedia page. OK, even if we presume that NIU didn't paid any attention to Wikipedia in granting him those titles, having a Wikipedia page makes the article subject notable to the outside world. Many Indian websites have published about him (e.g. this[31] was published in 2011), and that may be because of his Wikipedia page. Zenqueue (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Widely cited. Has an h-index of 35 per his Google Scholar profile. I think that the fellow designations (especially in the Royal Society of Chemistry, which elects 0.1% of its membership as fellows each year) would probably speak to notability, but I am having trouble locating a list of fellows from those organizations. That's a moot point though, considering the h-index. I notice that the lead of the article seems identical or very close to the bio on his faculty page. Not sure which came first, but it's probably easiest to rewrite that. There is substantial info in the article even without the text in question. If this subject has been a tenured professor for decades, I don't think we at WP can take credit for his notability. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although some of his papers are cited, none of them are paradigm shifting papers. There is no reliable source to verify that he is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry. If you were to review those substantial info in the page carefully, you will discover that they are not that substantial. He hasn't been a tenured professor for decades at universities such as Northwestern or Chicago. WP:PROF#C5 doesn't apply in this case. Zenqueue (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because this subject has an H-index of 35, doesn't mean that he is notable. It is not that difficult to find researchers who have high H-index but they haven't produced any paradigm shifting papers. H-index has limitations, see [32]. Zenqueue (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this and this confirms that he was awarded a research grant by the Humboldt Foundation, that he researched under this grant at Stuttgart University and that he co-published in 2009 four, and in 2010 nine, scientific papers. Kraxler (talk) 18:16, 8 June 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) 21:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sally-Anne Show[edit]

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

Non-notable local public-access show. I searched books, news, and general web, and could find no in-depth, reliable, independent sources that discuss this program. I'd be happy to be proven wrong. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - and article on Sally-Anne McCormack should probably be deleted also —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could nearly be an A7, as it makes no claims to notability. Also the star/subject Sally-Anne McCormack fails, apparently. Hithladaeus (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Search results are basically limited to social media. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:11, 5 June 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) Esquivalience ^t 23:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enemy Image[edit]

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

Can't find any sources about this film. Sam Walton (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – significant topic; hard to find coverage from 10 years ago but rated "outstanding" by Sydney Morning Herald [33] and strong review as well from The Guardian [34]. I'm not sure which publication this article abstract [35] is from - Newsweek? —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the sources found this article does not meet WP:NF, the sources found only give trivial litle blurbs with no significant coverage otherwise. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changed my mind, others have found enough sources to meet WP:NF. JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Documentaries are hard to track after their release dates, but this one got good reviews and got distribution. This last is pretty much the equivalent of a studio for a fictional film. Hithladaeus (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per also being covered in Indiewire. While it's unfortunate that the nominator could not find sources with his "WP:BEFORE", others have. WP:NF is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:40, 3 June 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) 21:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaymu Pakistan[edit]

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

not notable enough that it merit an entry on WP. i have removed references that are not reliable enough to be cited here. Saqib (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article cites reliable sources and passes WP:GNG. In future, should Draft:Kaymu is accepted, this article might be merged into Kaymu and the portion of article dealing with Rocket Internet in Pakistan with Rocket Internet. sami ^talk 19:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: @Samee: Thanks for your cooperation in making this a better version for readers. I would like to inform that there are several valuable points with me about Kaymu Pakistan, but I couldn't find reliable sources for them. Once I got a hold of a few, I will update further information.

I just saw Draft:Kaymu and this is full of errors, would you like me to update the content and sources as I have several reliable sources and exactly know what needs to be improved.

@Hariskhan12345: Please don't ping users unnecessarily. Also remember to sign your posts using four tildes ~~~~. There is no surety that this article will be kept rather it would depend on the consensus. As you're a new user and you're probably unfamiliar with many processes especially AfDs; I would like to inform you that you too can participate in the discussion by voting Keep or Delete etc with your arguments. sami ^talk 18:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS Draft:Kaymu at present is comparatively better than Kaymu Pakistan. You're welcome to edit but please don't mess up things with bias, puffery, and peacock terms. As you said there are several valuable points about the subject not supported by reliable sources, you should not write them as they'd constitute original research and it would be obvious use of Wikipedia for advertisement and promotional purposes. sami ^talk 18:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion Sami

Keep I would suggest to keep Kaymu Pakistan because the current material with article has strong references and offer authentic information. Samee Thanks for your suggestions. will make edits accordingly. Hariskhan12345 (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw — Since reliable references have been added. I withdraw this deletion nomination. --Saqib (talk) 06:05, 8 June 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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MAias Alyamani[edit]

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

~~A fuller version of this article has been twice declined at Articles for Creation.: Noyster (talk), 10:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)~~ Nomination withdrawn: the new references should be added to the mainspace article, together with [36], [37] and appropriate parts of the draft: Noyster (talk), 07:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yay thanks Noyster! And for those two on highbeam also. I'll work on this so it doesn't get prod again. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - wow, that draft should not have been declined. References are there, but are just not listed in a clean manner (bare URLs etc). Submitter listed significant coverage from all over the world. I can see declining this based on needing to be cleaned up, but to deny by claiming no evidence of notability is a complete fail. [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47] —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Those listed above don't establish notability, Per nom no evidence of notability fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Davey2010 how so? These demonstrate significant in-depth coverage of him in independent reliable sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources above - Sorry It's been a long day . –Davey2010^Talk 22:29, 1 June 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 Greater Richmond Transit Company#Numerical list of routes. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Route 6 (GRTC)[edit]

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

Non notable bus route. Individual bus routes are generally not encyclopedic and with no independent coverage this fails general notability. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Then all MTA bus lines fail "notability"... Quidster4040 (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Greater Richmond Transit Company#Numerical list of routes. I agree, all articles for MTA bus lines should not exist and should be redirected back to the list page. See Category:Redirects from New York City area bus routes. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable bus route, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Davey2010.Charles (talk) 20:24, 2 June 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) 07:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dikgobe[edit]

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

Does not seem notable and does not have much content. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 14:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a few more book references, including one recording the term from the 19th Century, which I've added to the article. I added one more fact sentence. It is likely that more substance can be added. There are enough reliable sources to establish notability, in light of the reference I found to the dish's being an essential part of Setswana celebrations, even though the dish may be unknown in the Western world. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aside from Geoff adding new references, "little content" is not a good reason for deletion (just tag it as a stub), and I'm not aware of any "notability" regulations for food. Even if there had not been references, you could have added a {{citation needed}} tag. --Biblioworm 14:36, 1 June 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. Consensus is to Keep, I will say however the article is in a piss-poor condition and does need alot of attention, That said notability does seem to be there. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nayakuralu Nagamma[edit]

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

The article is not intelligible and has sources but those are not clear. Searches here and here found results but nothing to improve the article. A browser search found this (I'm not sure what it says) and this (which like Books confirms this person has been portrayed in movies). There's simply nothing to improve this article and nothing to significantly support it (at least with English sources). SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (assuming that it is not a hoax). Since it appears to have some sources, I find it hard to think it is a hoax. If what it says is true, I am most surprised that she has not been a feminist heroine, since medieval stateswomen were few and far between. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - I did find mentions of her and her name in Telugu is "నాయకురాలు నాగమ్మ" [48] —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There do seem to be some sources, although difficult to find. There's this google books mention, and the source indicated above. The article is appalling in its present state, but no indication of it being a hoax. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:29, 7 June 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. Superficial referenciness evaporates under any kind of scrutiny. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Romania[edit]

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

Nearly unknown local version that fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 11:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a national competition, and has significant coverage. See here], here, here, here, here.... Kraxler (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- All of them about the contestants, none about the pageant itself. The Banner talk 21:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The contestants are inseparable from the contest. You can't talk about the Olympics without mentioning the athletes. Kraxler (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. It is the pageant itself that needs the sources. The Banner talk 10:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner, instead of continually creating individual AfDs (that go nowhere) for all these pageants you feel are not notable, I think you should approach Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants and discuss your concern there. Pageant people should know which are the most significant and notable pageants, and what the best course of action should be. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are funny with that proposal. You know that they would never agree...

But in the mean time, I am still missing reliable, independent sources conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 17:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns/campaign to keep non-notable pageants is cute, but in the long run it will fail. Just like Miss Grand Cambodia, that was removed after a normal procedure. The Banner talk 19:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no "campaign" and no particular interest in beauty pageants. Based on your reaction, it seems like you're the one with the campaign to delete as many beauty pageants and beauty pageant people as you can. How sad. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only campaign I have joined is the quest to keep Wikipedia free from advertising and promotion... The Banner talk 10:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kraxler —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Again, if this were an article even making an attempt to establish itself, it would discuss its licensure, its sponsors, and its reactions. As it is, this is a pageant not affiliated with Miss Universe or Miss ___. It is two years old. There are no reliable sources discussing the notability of the pageant, and we still don't know who "Grand" is that is creating the pageants. Put beautiful women on a stage, and tabloids and newspapers will take pictures, so that's not going to be sufficient. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Miss Grand International franchise was founded in 2013 by Nawat Itsaragrisil. Lots of sources and info there, in Thai language. Kraxler (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kraxler: I hope this isn't typical for your contributions at AfD, because when I checked the "lots of sources and info" in that article I found four dead links (i.e. failing WP:V), a link to a blog (i.e. not WP:RS), a link to Miss Grand International's own web site, a link to Globalbeauties (a blog-like website in Brazil that IMHO isn't independent of the subject and thus is of little value as a source), and a single WP:RS source, an interview with him that had no connection whatsoever to Miss Grand International, and is of no use in any other article than Nawat Itsaragrisil. Meaning that there's no way you could have checked the links before posting your claim here about there being lots of sources about Miss Grand International. While I !voted delete because I, obviously unlike you, check all links before making up my mind. Thomas.W ^talk 17:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're mixing up things again, Thomas. I just answered Hithladaeus's question about who created the pageants. The sources at that article (which was not nominated for deletion) supported (at the time, although now dead) the info given there, after all we should AGF. Those dead links in Thai language have no bearing on Miss Grand Romania, you better check out what the five links I posted here above say about the event, aside from what they say about the candidates. And by the way, Global Beauties is an independent news outlet that reports on beauty pageants, and has editorial oversight, it's clearly an RS, it's not some blog or some user-created stuff. You better check first, instead of speculating about the nature of the source. Concerning AfD participation, you could check out with the AfD tool, instead of making disparaging remarks, my own stats say 92% green, your's are 70%. The statistics say you need to improve a little bit to reach my level of understanding of the deletion guidelines. Kraxler (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That tool is of no value whatsoever, if I jumped in late in hundreds of AfDs, when they were already decided, I could easily get my percentage to close to a 100. It also has nothing to do with understanding of deletion guidelines, such understanding is shown in the comments that accompany the !votes, and in the work that is done before !voting, not in a percentage in that tool. You also forgot to mention that the Afd tool showed that I took part in 97 AfD-discussions and cast a discernible !vote in 93 of them (96%), while you took part in 108 Afd-discussions but only cast a discernible !vote in 48 of them (44%). So what did you do in the rest of them? Thomas.W ^talk 17:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, I mediated the discussion to come to a result that is fair to the subject and is borne out by policy and guidelines. I relisted other discussions, and closed a few. And thanks for accusing me to stack my AfD votes. You could have taken a look at the discussions, and then opined; or you could have decided that it is not worthwhile, and kept silent. You rather get back to the issue: Miss Grand Romania. No need to argue ad hominem. Kraxler (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't accuse you of stacking anything, since it's obvious from your measly 48 AfD-!votes (in 108 AfD-discussions you have taken part in) that you hadn't done that, I only told you why the tool (which was brought into the discussion by you, not me) is of no value whatsoever. Thomas.W ^talk 19:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you. Imagine, though: "Part of the Grand International beauty pageant competition, Miss Grand Romania is a pageant contest for (single?) women, ages -- to --. It has a strong endowment thanks to --- and has contracts for television/radio/press coverage with ---." You get the picture, I hope. Look at Miss Universe. There is a huge difference between an article about the pageant as an object and an article promoting the pageant, and these read like promotions. I don't doubt the good faith of those who feel differently from me. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get the picture. "Poorly written" or "lack of more specific content" are no reasons to delete an article. Certainly it is difficult to ascertain notability if there's not much content, but then the article should be tagged {{notability}}, not for deletion. The Banner tagged about a dozen or more beauty pageant-related articles, without bothering to read WP:BEFORE. Many of them were kept in the meanwhile. I'll add more info and sources as soon as possible. Kraxler (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you read WP:RS first instead of adding more related sources. And a bit more AGF would also be nice. The Banner talk 16:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather you wouldn't lecture on AGF after nominating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Globe International (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Suriname and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Earth 2015 at none of which a single delete vote was cast. Kraxler (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no more arguments so you get personal. Nice to know. The Banner talk 20:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your AfD stats, The Banner, say 51% green. I suggest you read up more on policy and guidelines before you continue to waste more of the community's time and effort. By the way, this whole navel-gazing was started by Thomas.W when he said here above " I hope this isn't typical for your contributions at AfD...", arguing ad hominem and questioning my qualifications or intentions. I never questioned any !voter's qualifications or intentions at AfD before, but I felt obliged to answer Thomas's question. And I'll now continue to refrain from commenting on the !voters, and shall argue exclusively about the issue at stake. Kraxler (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - No evidence of notability fails ORG + GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The usual pattern of blogs, forums, dead links and articles that aren't about the beauty pageant but about an individual contestant that we see in all articles relating to Miss Grand International. Thomas.W ^talk 22:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as being so poorly sourced, and possibly too soon to be notable. If this really were important, it would be in reliable mass media, newspapers, and magazine articles. In the alternative, redirect to Miss Grand International Bearian (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been only two or editions, that's right. The Miss Grand International franchise was founded in 2013. But the mass media are indeed reporting about it, see here, here and here. Kraxler (talk) 15:11, 9 June 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) 07:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Japan[edit]

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

Nearly unknown local version that fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 11:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep national beauty pageant which passes WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kraxler —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination: There are no reliable sources for the notability for this pageant that is now two years old and is unaffiliated with the Miss Japan and Miss Universe Japan pageants. Hey, but it has Facebook pages. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - No evidence of notability fails ORG + GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the sources, with one exception, are of the usual fancruft-variety: blogs, forums, Facebook and Flickr. The one exception is Kobe Journal, but that article (which I translated through Google Translate) is all about a contestant who is said to prepare to go to Miss Grand International, and Miss Grand Japan isn't even mentioned in the article. Which under normal circumstances would qualify as a fake reference. Thomas.W ^talk 22:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, the references provided are either not reliable or do not actually mention Miss Grand Japan, so notability has not been established. --DAJF (talk) 04:57, 8 June 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 is that the article does not meet the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Albania[edit]

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

Local version of a pageant that fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 11:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI The Banner a national event is not a "local" event. Is Miss America a local event? —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just show me the reliable, independent sources needed conform WP:RS. What is needed are sources about the pageant itself. You have spend a load of words without proving that the pageant is notable. The Banner talk 17:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change the fact that it's not local like you wrote. Why do you "spend" an extra word that's not true? —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it with reliable source, mate. The Banner talk 22:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it not a "local version", it's a national beauty pageant, and has a lot of sources. Passes WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Most sources fail WP:RS. The Banner talk 10:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kraxler —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Miss Grand" is the prefix going on here. The article makes clear that this pageant is not part of the Universe or Miss pageants. Therefore, "Grand" is ostensibly the sponsor. So, who or what is that sponsor? Why is that sponsoring agency significant and major? How is this pageant, first held last year, notable? We need reliable sources, not primaries. Until then, fails RS notability and appears to be promotional. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - No evidence of notability fails ORG + GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another fancruft-article related to Miss Grand International that is sourced only to Facebook, Youtube, blogs, forums, personal websites and dead links. A pattern that I can see in all articles related to Miss Grand International that I have checked so far. Thomas.W ^talk 22:32, 1 June 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 Saint Martin. due to lack of credible evidence of independent notability. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.mf[edit]

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

Do we really need an article on an unassigned domain? Orthogonal1 (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any policy-based reason to delete the article. It's not in use, but it verifiably exists. Guettarda (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Guettarda, are you sure that it exists? The article states ".mf is an assigned Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) that may be created for Saint Martin". Orthogonal1 (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose "exists" might be too strong a term, but "verifiable". Guettarda (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lean to delete due to the fact that the article is about a news event -- a policy decision, not a country domain -- and yet the article occupies name space for the still putative domain. Consequently, the most that could be done is redirect and fold the material into Saint Martin, but I don't support even that, because there is no reason, at present or in the foreseeable future, for any researcher or search to come to Wikipedia typing in that term expecting that information. What's more likely is that there is a glee in getting those two initials to show up as an "article." So, when the domain is populated, redirect. Until then, delete. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - .mf is not a news event but an internet domain name. It's been assigned to Saint Martin for a long time [49], [50], [51]. Why it's not in use yet I don't know. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second article states that the domain has not been delegated. However, now I'm starting to think that we should do what User:Hithladaeus said - redirect and fold the material into Saint Martin. The domain by itself isn't notable enough for an article. Orthogonal1 (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For me, it was a news story. Even if it's old news, until the domain is actually used by somebody, there is no "there there," as Gertrude Stein said of Oakland. Suppose that the NFL announced that Quebec could have a team, that it would be called the Quebec City Triumph, and then that Quebec never funded, recruited, or fielded a team. Would there be a team to discuss, or would there be an event to discuss? Plus, I really think the reason Saint Martin isn't using the domain is related to the reason people want to talk about it, and that's the unfortunate English language associations of those two letters. It's almost like having the country domain .fu. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:49, 2 June 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) 07:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Eugene[edit]

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

Non-notable as an actor and basically best known as a musician for Adam Again therefore redirect to Adam Again. Searches here (results fade by page 3), here (two results), here and here found nothing significant and notable. I would've moved it myself but I wanted a consensus. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Known as the founder and leader of Adam Again, original member (songwriter, shared lead vocals, multi-instrumentalist) of Lost Dogs. Producer of many bands in alternative Christian music. AllMusic has an entry for him. The Encyclopaedia of Contemporary Christian Music does not have an entry for him, but it lists him at least 20 times across various entries. The problem is you've limited your search to "Gene Eugene Adam Again", and he was more than just the band's founder. He was co-founder of "Brainstorm Artists International" in 1987 (see [52] and AllMusic entry), an influential alternative Christian music label, that was again absorbed by its distributor in 1997. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally forgot his involvement with The Swirling Eddies, primarily because all of the band members used pseudonyms in the band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- [53] and [54] Reproductions of print-only article: [55] also at [56] Shame more isn't available online, but his production credits alone help him meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than sufficient sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tehmina Adaya[edit]

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

Non-notable businesswoman and attention has been almost solely for the anti-Semitism legal trouble with News (only one non-anti-Semitism-related link in a press release here), browser, Highbeam and thefreelibrary (also one non-anti-Semitism-related link but it's a passing mention in a press release here; Books and Newspapers Archive found nothing. I suppose she could be mentioned at her father's page. SwisterTwister talk 03:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With this said, I'm also not sure if the father is notable as aside from his current sources, I found nothing here, here (one link when he died from Hindustan Times India) and News and browser mostly found links for Tehmina; nothing at Books and Newspapers Archive. SwisterTwister talk 04:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be transient infamy due to the hothouse atmosphere of the west coast, high income, boutique microcosm. A single event does not confer notability. The rest of the article argues music business credentials that don't have notability support and business notability that doesn't have support. Therefore, because of EVENT, the one qualifier loses out. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A single event does not confer notability. Another article created by the same editor is Hotel Shangri-La, which is owned by this subject and is of questionable notability.Pincrete (talk) 09:04, 8 June 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) 07:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shraavya Reddy[edit]

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

prod that was removed-unotable actress who falls under way too soon Wgolf (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW-forgot to put this is a auto bio also. Wgolf (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Autobio of an actress who has not yet gotten out of the local market. No discussion of her by independent RS. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing and there's isn't even an IMDb which isn't surprising given her short filmography. SwisterTwister talk 17:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. WP:TOOSOON Joseph2302 (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, and possible is a case of TOOSOON. Cannot seem to find any reliable secondary coverage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as she's not "reddy" for an article just yet . –Davey2010^Talk 01:16, 8 June 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) 07:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014-15 EMSA Premier League[edit]

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

The only google hits I got were of a minor league soccer club. I dream of horses (T) @ 02:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Presumably this is a season article for the Edmonton Minor Soccer League. Per previous consensus, season articles for football leagues, except where there is clear GNG sourcing, are only desirable for either the top league in a given country or fully professional leagues where below the top flight. This league does not satisfy any of these three criteria. Fenix down (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, possible hoax? Giant Snowman 16:23, 4 June 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 is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marc van Roon[edit]

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

Reason Yasima burundi (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC) this article does NOT meet Wikipedia Notability Guidelines ,[reply]

 There is NO Wikipedia independent reliable sources on this article , 
THERE IS NO Evidence of Notability on this article -- --Yasima burundi (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If you had done WP:BEFORE you would have found all the reliable sources. -- haminoon (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you list soem of these sources? I'm not an expert on the Netherlands jazz scene but I couldn't find much. There are a few event listings in the news search, but little in-depth coverage. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I'm afraid I'm also not finding sources online, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Holy cow! This isn't promotional, is it? Ok, well, the labels are independent (for the recordings), and otherwise we have "worked with" (played with). We have a furious pace of recording/composition, which is, of course, possible, but we have so much detail here that it seems like the work of either the artist's #1 fan or someone even more devoted. As below, individual musicians need to be discussed by others before they pass notability or sell a lot (not really an option in jazz) or at least be on a national/international major label. Fails music guidelines. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:01, 1 June 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) 07:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Pod Delusion[edit]

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

Seems time for this one to go, a PROD template was previously removed but the article relies entirely on a 1 minute appearance on the BBC's "Click" and a couple of awards from Skeptic magazine. The awards seem to be minor and I can find no other evidence the podcast has received significant coverage from any news sources. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I can't find anything and it looks like it's no longer running, most recent editions were in August 2014 and April 2014 —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A minor podcast that benefited from celebrity association and Rolodex journalism. It didn't remain or have effects that led to discussion and a need for an article. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to List of skeptical podcasts (as an alternative to deletion and preserve the current article) - All my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing significant aside from a few Highbeam results. SwisterTwister talk 17:58, 2 June 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ketq[edit]

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

Non-notable radio station. Article contains no references and I have been unable to find any. --Non-Dropframe _talk 01:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At least it looks like a usual radio station article now. ~~Delete~~ - Like most cases, radio stations won't get much attention and if so, it won't be much. It certainly seems to be the case here, all my searches at News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 17:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after significant improvement to this article, including proper sourcing to the FCC. FCC-licensed broadcast radio stations are generally found notable the way other civic infrastructure like towns, highways, and newspapers are found notable for Wikipedia's purposes. It's true that radio stations sometimes do not draw a lot of third party coverage but they themselves are a reliable source for coverage and the precedent at common outcomes is for these articles is to be kept. - Dravecky (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dravecky: I understand what you mean but is a station with a three-month old license really "civic infrastructure?" I could understand if it's been around for ages but it hasn't. --Non-Dropframe _talk 01:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Per Dravecky. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yuba City, California#Arts and culture: Full-power stations are presumed notable, but (1) this is a LPFM that has only existed for 3 months, and (2) even if there were a presumption for LPFMs, this station is provably profoundly lacking in coverage. I can't even find local mentions, not even about the station launch, after a brief search. This station is an example of how LPFMs don't have the guarantee of future coverage that full-power stations do. WP:TOOSOON at best. --Closeapple (talk)
- Comment: I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Under WP:NMEDIA, all radio stations (AM, FM and Low Power) are notable. Plus, 5 references (three from Federal Government sources) are MORE than enough to meet GNG, in addition to WP:NMEDIA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:31, 7 June 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) 06:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Valley Crips[edit]

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

Non-notable local crips. Should be deleted or redirected to Crips. reddogsix (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The infobox claims they are allied with the Hidden Valley Kings, which seems to be a marginally notable gang. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as possible hoax or just invented name - no references whatsoever to this gang ever existing. List here for Mecklenburg county has Hidden Valley Kings and generic Crips (like many counties) but no "Hidden Valley Crips." —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references whatsoever. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Like Wikimandia, I could find brief mentions of basic generic Crips groups but there doesn't seem to be any specific gang by this name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm near tagging this as G3 because all my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found absolutely nothing. Even browser simply found this article so that's not saying much. It's worth noting the article's author edited Hidden Valley Kings twice so I'm not sure if there was an unintentional copy and paste mix or what. SwisterTwister talk 17:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:V if not an outright hoax. No trace of this gang found outside Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 2 June 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) 06:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Susan L. Combs[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Sources cited are dead links, self-published or specific trade journals. Unable to find one reliable source to establish notability outside of specific trade journals. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Has not received a well-known and significant award or honor, or been nominated for one several times. Has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in her specific field. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject of the biography probably is prominent and a leader in some ways, but, while the organization she founded might get an article (and herself a mention as its founder), her distinctions seem to be within New York City. Now, that's a pretty high stage, but it's also one with eight million people and about two million circles of recognition; these can somewhat neutralize one another. Without outside, RS references, she fails for the biography. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there aren't many good sources. News and Books searches found nothing but browser found links here including a passing mention at Entrepreneur along with Highbeam (one result, the second result seems most relevant) and finally thefreelibrary with a few results. SwisterTwister talk 17:32, 2 June 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 [[]]. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1201 Strenua[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 1 June 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 [[]]. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1847 Stobbe[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect. Thiele's 1000'th asteroid [57] but I don't see a lot of significance in that milestone. And part of a 1974 close encounter with 511 Davida that could help determine that larger asteroid's mass [58] but I think that's more about Davida than this one. Other than that I found one lightcurve study [59] but I still think it's a bit short of the bar for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: insufficient reliable sources available to build an article of decent length. It fails WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 20:28, 6 June 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, nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes.(non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1807 Slovakia[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The period of 308 hours is notable. -- Kheider (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its unusually long period is sourced in the title of a published article [60]. It's only one in-depth source but in this case I think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- seems to have received sufficient coverage, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination Happy to withdraw this, per comments above. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:17, 1 June 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. Consensus is that the article does meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Motherfuckers[edit]

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

Unsourced article on a tribute album by a bunch of mainly redlinked bands to a band of no real importance. Queen they are not. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wouldn't dismiss it by saying it's a band of no real importance. I've never heard of them either but this is a Norwegian project and it seems like a very popular band (I looked at the Norwegian article for that band and what linked there, to see if I could find the tribute album article in Norwegian, and the band page was listed among the 1,000 most popular articles for a pretty impressive stretch), but that doesn't mean anything since there are not enough mentions of the tribute album itself that I can find to satisfy GNG. Someone else might have better luck. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The QOTSA element of the tribute album should be enough on its own and I turned up these Norwegian/Swedish articles in a few seconds one, two and three. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The inclusion on this album of a track by Queens of the Stone Age, a six time Grammy nominee and one of the leading rock bands of the 21st century, creates a very high presumption of notability. Josh Homme does not fool around. Some of the sources mentioned by Lugnuts confirm my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very large number of notable bands involved, and at least some coverage in notable sources. Black Kite (talk) 21:03, 2 June 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. Davewild (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1817 Katanga[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Included in three lightcurve studies of small sets of asteroids [61] [62] [63]. Maybe it's enough? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I only see two photometry studies, but my notability bar isn't very high. Praemonitus (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: NASTRO says such mentions in light curve studies may make it notable enough for redirect to a list, why is this asteroid independently notable to warrant its own article? – czar 15:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – czar 15:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I fail to see how WP:GNG or other notability criteria are met. Given the number of these space object AfD entries, I would think there would be clear guidelines when they are listed separately or in a group or not at all. But I have not seen anything like that.--Rpclod (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that bots created roughly 20,000 asteroid stubs between 2004 and 2011. NASTRO was created in 2012 in part to stop unapproved bots. ~15,000 of those 20,000 stubs are now re-directs. Hundreds of asteroids have been sitting at CAT:NN for 3 years and Boleyn has been sending them to AfDs. There is no easy rule for asteroids with borderline notability. -- Kheider (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 21:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What it mentions as not counting is being listed in a table alongside 200 other objects. But in this case, it is covered individually to the point where one of these papers mentions it (as one of three objects) in its very title. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just enough lightcurve studies to cross the arbitrary notability threshold. -- Kheider (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The statement that this is a well known company has some merit, but the article itself is clearly promotional and written by the company's people, and credible evidence of reliable independent coverage is missing at this time. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dalmia Group[edit]

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

This is an article I believe is better to delete or redirect to Ramkrishna Dalmia (probably better redirect to save it and mention at founder's article) as it seems the company is not notable. I looked through links listed here and the few news links there are barely mention the company (much less significant and in-depth) and almost half of the links are primary with others being simple links. Books found several links but looking through until page 6 I found nothing outstanding aside from confirming some of the companies' subsidiary businesses. A News search and Highbeam found nothing that looked outstanding either. Searches at The Hindu, Hindustan Times, Times of India and India Express all found no results. The article has basically remained the same since April 2007 and has read more like a personal page (not to mention, it seems Dalmia family members including creator have edited the page) and I don't see much possibility for improvement. The only good thing I could find to come closer to confirm the $5 billion turnover was this and it says they are the family holdings. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references at all, let alone any reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a well known industrial group in India. Yes, it needs references. There are numerous references in books and news reports. Note that they are generally referred to as the Dalmias, rather than the Dalmia Group. Malaiya (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I would appreciate your input. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 1 June 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) 06:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Charter[edit]

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

Very possible SPAM or hoax. Article contains no sourced content, makes claims regarding an oral cancer test which is linked to commercial promotional site (part constructed). Similarly strong claims re past business experience of subject. Article was created by, and is largely edited by, what appears to have been since 2006 a single purpose account [64]. Delete.Pincrete (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it is a hoax. There appears to be some evidence for his existence such as this 8-K form and this TEDx talk, but neither of those sources establish notability. Nothing I found could reliably verify the claims made in this article or assert his notability, so delete per WP:BIO. A note to other participants, because this article is nearly nine years old, there is a very high amount of information sourced from Wikipedia out there so beware of circular referencing. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't doubting his existence. I meant that claims about achievements are possibly hoax. As you note, this article seems to have been here for a long time. I found it by accident as a result of trying to find out about 'Paysafe' internet payment technology, which the article claims Dennis Charter invented. 'Paysafe', turns out to be the name of a genuine 'smart' payment card in the Phillipines, but was also used as the name for a payment service used by a major internet scam. I have no reason to connect Dennis Charter to that scam of course, but there seems to be little reason to connect him to any genuine online payment technologies.Pincrete (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe a major factor why this article was started was partially for promotion as this is the first edit and at some point had several links to various people here but then actually added better references here. The bottom line though is that there isn't significant and notable coverage about him and all my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) only found a few results from Books. SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Present refs are all either dead or extremely dubious in supporting the article's assertions.Pincrete (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep despite the presence of numerous unsupported claims in the article - many are still left in – the subject is notable in his business dealings. This includes a criminal conviction for "improperly diverting a cheque for $402,500." and nine months jail time. I have expanded the article and supplied references for some information, someone else should go through and trim back more of the unsupported contentious claims and the NPoV description of much of his career.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still not notable! Shaidar cuebiyar's additions are here:[65]. … … ps I have checked out Shaidar cuebiyar's additions because of the BLP implications, they appear to be RS, however I can't help feeling that they only 'muddy the water'. The man has had a couple of 'less-than-successful' business ventures and a criminal conviction, this doesn't constitute significant notoriety, let alone notability. Pincrete (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Pincrete (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This guy is a minor, non-notable figure in music promotion who tried to get into pharmaceuticals. The article is riddled with unreferenced name-dropping. Yes, he served some jail time on a check scam, but if that made someone notable, Wikipedia editors would hang around jails at discharge time, to write biographies of two bit crooks. We don't. Fails WP:PERP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A wheeler-dealer who wheeled and dealed but whose jumps from industry to industry without qualification other than the prospect of money suggests worlds about the motivations of the article. Fails as promo and as an individual who has not proven to be independently notable. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:17, 1 June 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) 06:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maro Mavri[edit]

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

Utterly non-notable per WP:NMODEL. Quis separabit? 12:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails NMODEL + GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Speedy was declined because Mavri's main role in a Greek TV show qualifies as a claim to notability, and I'm inclined to agree and believe that this meets WP:NMODEL when factoring in IMDb's listed credits. The article obviously needs more sources, hence the "weak" part, but I don't speak Greek so I can't say for certain what's out there. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 20:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Role in TV show is not big enough to pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have to agree with the delete on the basis of a single role in a show. The other material is puzzling: she gave an interview to Maxim that she had been putting off because she was not used to posing erotically when she was a model, but she stopped being a model years earlier? Huh? Well, that's one interview in a ladmag and a role in a TV show. That's not quite there. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:33, 1 June 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 per WP:SNOW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renewable resourses in wisconson[edit]

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

Appears to be a homework assignment or WP:NOTESSAY without any encyclopedic content. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing whatsoever of value here, starting with two misspellings in the title, and rolling downhill from there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No useful information and no sources. Is there a speedy criteria that applies here? It almost feels like a A10, as none of the information is actually specific to Wisconsin. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It doesn't say anything about its topic, as it says nothing specific to resources, renewable or otherwise, in Wisconsin. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Cullen & Howicus. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:12, 1 June 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) 06:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brandeis Hillel Day School of San Francisco[edit]

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

I doubt this school is notable. I dream of horses (T) @ 00:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although this K-8 primary school is well-known among the Jews of the San Francisco Bay Area (like me), our usual consensus is that primary schools are not notable, unless of unusual architectural or historic significance. I see no such evidence in this case. In addition, the article is an unreferenced one-sentence stub. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Cullen³²⁸ Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Primary school. I'm sure it's wonderful, but the bulging doors need to have hinges. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches found results here, here, here and here but nothing considered notable and significant. SwisterTwister talk 18:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy on elementary schools/middle schools: high schools get articles regardless, below ONLY when notable for something besides existing.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No evidence that this school is notable. It is unreferenced and fails WP:SCHOOL. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to San Rafael, California#Educational institutions. This is the accepted practice, see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Boleyn (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, Boleyn, is that the San Francisco and San Rafael campuses are no longer affiliated. They are now independent. There are over 100 private primary schools in San Francisco and we have no list of them at this time. Therefore, there is no good redirect target. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Thanks for explaining that. Another possible redirect target is Louis Brandeis#Namesake institutions. Would there be any objections to that? Boleyn (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about poor Hillel the Elder? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've no idea what you mean. That article doesn't mention the school; the one I suggested does. Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I guess it could be redirected to San Francisco if really desired but I'm leaning delete per all of the above which seems a better idea IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 01:21, 8 June 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 procedural close. I'll re-open the AfD in the proper place - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Similarity Enhanced Transfer. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Similarity Enhanced Transfer[edit]

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

8 year old proposed extension to BitTorrent that went nowhere. Only sources are the original academic paper and one speculative BBC segment (referencing the paper). This was somebody's science project...

Delete as nominator. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blaxthos, are you nominating the page or its talk page? I assume the page itself, but I just wanted to make sure. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - why are you nominating a talk page for deletion? [66], [67], [68] —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:47, 1 June 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 redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nitrogen intoxication[edit]

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

Appears to be a setup for a homework assignment, contains no encyclopedic content. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete based on WP:A1 I have no idea what this article is even talking about. As the nominator said, "contains no encyclopedic content." --Non-Dropframe _talk 01:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nitrogen narcosis as it is a synonym. There is nothing worth saving in this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - same thing, "The phenomenon of narcosis associated with nitrogen has been alternatively termed "nitrogen intoxication" though "narcosis" is the generally accepted name."[69] —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as seems to be the same thing - I originally closed as Redirect but the AFD was only nominated an hour ago so wasn't entirely comfortable closing that early. –Davey2010^Talk 02:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Wikimandia's source. This article is very obviously and very badly WP:NOTESSAY. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 03:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nitrogen narcosis, of course. Nothing to save. Tigraan (talk) 11:03, 1 June 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) 06:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dairyland Farm World[edit]

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

Can't see any coverage beyond local newspapers or basic listings in directories of tourist locations, so can't see that this would meet any reasonable level of notability. _nonsense ferret 00:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: There is a reference to BBC coverage, but there isn't much more to be found independently. Note that the article itself links to "The Big Sheep," which is going to fail if this fails. The article text provides no substantial claim to notability and nearly does the reverse. I would never want to see more promotion in an article, but this one makes it sound like a farm-saving opening up of the facility. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, and worth making the point that the BBC coverage is from the local BBC Cornwall - which is very limited in scope and thus does not evidence interest outside of the local area. --_nonsense ferret 12:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete (and maybe draft) because although there is coverage as shown here, here, here and here, there's not much significant. SwisterTwister talk 17:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to show that Dairyland Farm World or The Big Sheep are anything more than reasonably popular local tourist attractions. I think both WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:ORGDEPTH apply and would favor deleting these two articles. Bordwall(^talk⁄_ctrb) 18:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 2 June 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.