Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 June	20 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 speedily deleted by Jimfbleak (after being moved from Prof. Dr. Nabil Kochaji to Nabil Kochaji) as a copyright violation. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete/snow close. I'm somewhat speedying this as WP:A11, but a complete lack of coverage or even a book listing gives off the impression that a delete would be inevitable in this situation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect World Depression: The Fourth Wall Organization[edit]

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

Unreferenced article. looks like it is about a book, but could not find any information on Google. Fails notability criteria for books.and our general notability guidelines. Prod was removed by author that seems to be using a single purpose account. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NBOOK and more important WP:V. No trace of this work found outside the Wikipedia article. If this isn't made up, it's extremely obscure. Either way, it's not notable without RS coverage or criticism. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searched by whole title, main title (series title?), and subtitle, including on HighBeam, ProQuest, and InfoTrac. Found nothing. A search on one of the character names in the article resulted in this twitter account. With no reliable sources, cannot not meet any notability guideline. Worldbruce (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can tell, this is something that the author is currently writing and as such, this is likely a WP:ONEDAY scenario where this was likely added by the creator herself. I'm going to speedy this as such. On a side note, the author's mobos (some sort of fantasy creature) are kind of cute and I do heartily recommend that she continue to write. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:33, 26 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, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Scott Carter[edit]

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

The subject of this article is not notable and does not have enough coverage in verifiable or reliable sources. According to Wikipedia guidelines, notability exists "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." This person has received some coverage regarding a run for state treasurer of Illinois, but the coverage was not significant and there are no news sources indicating that this person ever actually ran for office. The majority of sources for the article are written by the subject of the article, and few of the sources offer any real verification of the claims made. Thus this person has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Rather, this article appears to be a self-serving attempt at promotion, including lots of detail about a person with almost no public profile at all. At most, this person was planning on running for state treasurer at one time but did not run for state treasurer. Moreover, all of the references to his position as Founder and Director of the Chicago Academy of Music come from the Chicago Academy of Music. There are no independent sources of information indicating that this person or his position are notable. This is not a subject that meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia. Chilawgo (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 22:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Momentary candidate for office; does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). Some Illinois coverage about his campaign announcements, mostly chiding the campaign for its amateurish output, but nothing much afterwards. He didn't even appear on the ballot according to the candidate list for the 2014 primary on the Illinois State Board of Elections website. According to http://www.elections.il.gov/campaigndisclosure/CommitteeDetail.aspx?id=25093 his campaign paid out all its remaining campaign funds to Carter's own company, CAM Creative, and filed its final report on January 27, 2014, a month and a half before the March 18 primary. As for the "United Nations Leading Group on Innovative Financing" — there is no such thing. There is a less-than-10-year-old NGO called the Leading Group on Innovative Financing for Development; Carter made a presentation to it on a day when the group happened to be meeting at the UN. The cited State Journal-Register source does claim that "He said his conversations grew out of his membership on the UN Leading Group on Innovative Financing"; I don't know what that might mean, however, as countries and organizations are members, not individuals; and I can't find him listed anywhere, but maybe there isn't a list. For more clarification on the alleged UN thing: Kaergard, Chris (September 23, 2013). "Statewide candidate at the UN — if interpreted loosely". PJStar.com (online ed.). Retrieved 2015-06-21. --Closeapple (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is resting almost entirely on primary sources rather than reliable ones, and is making no claim of notability substantive enough to satisfy either WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. An unelected candidate for office does not get to keep a campaign brochure on Wikipedia just because he existed — to be eligible for an article, he must either win the election and thereby hold a notable office (running in it is not enough in and of itself), or already have been notable enough for other reasons that he already qualified for an article independently of being a candidate. But that hasn't been demonstrated here either — and Wikipedia is not here for people to keep LinkedIn-style public relations profiles, which is about all this article, as written, is. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 22 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) 20:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TLC International School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Sammy1339 (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, TLC is one of three main international schools in Nouakchott. Despite its lack of web presence, which I have added, TLC is very popular with Mauritanian, Sudanese, and and Senegalese families looking for an English-based education for their children. --Jimmymansaray (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources provided. I only found brief mentions Tinton5 (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the bar for schools is very low on Wikipedia. Even though I didn't find much to indicate the school was notable, I found plenty of online evidence that the school exists. I think we should keep it as part of the gazetteer aspect of Wikipedia. ubiquity (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - bar for universities is quite low; much harder for high school and lower to be notable. I found this article, but nothing else by way of coverage. If anyone can find any other coverage in Arabic or French, I'll reconsider. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my lack of experience with wikipedia. I'm responding to Tinton5. Mauritania has a very small internet footprint in general. Check Peace Quilt from TLC and Official Facebook page. Also, what would be considered a notable school? Isn't any international school in a sparsely populated country notable? --Jimmymansaray (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Social media isn't always reliable. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (schools) for more details. Tinton5 (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSCHOOL.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:27, 19 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.

(non-admin closure) The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G11.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trading Advantage[edit]

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

This article is Self-promotion and publicity, does not meet Notability guidelines. 114.35.118.182 (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. ansh 666 17:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because the sources used are the company website, YouTube videos, and two "consumer report" agencies. Those sources along with the tone used in the writing seals the deal on a delete for me.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete pretty clear case CorporateM (Talk) 02:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated the article for speedy deletion per WP:G11.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:52, 21 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) 18:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Barberini (1562–1630)[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable. Notability is not inherited from children or other relatives. Quis separabit? 16:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if Duke of Monterotondo is an actual title. Otherwise, redirect to Barberini family and add his name there (replacing "other brother"). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can find him named in books (e.g. [1] [2], but never as a major personage. He appears to be best known as a member of the Barberini family, brother of a Pope (if I read this right), and father of some important players in the politics of the time. I don't know whether it's better to keep this or delete it, but it appears to me that if this were more recent we would be invoking WP:NOTINHERITED for this person. LaMona (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Duke of Monterotondo (Duca di Monterotondo) is a title; he was also a lieutenant general and writer. There's a sufficient entry on him in the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani. [3] —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A brother of a Pope with a notable involvment in the managment of Papal States.User:Lucifero4
Keep. Arguments the same as above CarlosPn (talk) 20:59, 24 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 Incubated, early close per move to draft space (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unbreakable (Janet Jackson album)[edit]

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

Album has no definitive release date and its title has yet to be given confirmation from Janet Jackson nor her camp. As it is, there is no confirmed tracklist or album cover, which are classified as qualifications for notable album articles. Simply being a Janet Jackson album does not qualify it for an article. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and go for WP:AFC. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:58, 20 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 Speedily deleted as a G6 (housekeeping). Nothing needing discussion here, just a redirect from a mis-spelled original title. Michig (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Digswell Arst Trust[edit]

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

pure spelling mistake Gerbis (talk) 16:11, 19 June 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 June 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:26, 19 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) 18:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artemy Lebedev[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable. ~~Notability can't be derived from parents.~~ Quis separabit? 16:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is notable as the designer of Optimus Maximus keyboard and his article in Russian has loads of references. His article has no mention of his parents. 103.27.227.205 (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"His article has no mention of his parents.": that's true as I now see. Having recently edited the Tatyana Tolstaya article, which is how I know he is her son, I guess I conflated something somewhere. My aoplogies. Quis separabit? 12:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quite a solid ruwp article. And yes, I have read WP:OTHERLANGS, but sources don't have to be in English to establish notability, and among the sources on the ruwp article are some reasonably prominent news sites. APerson (talk!) 18:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: Despite the edit summary of my !vote, I did intend to recommend keeping the article. APerson (talk!) 19:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. As far as modern Russian designers go, this is one of the most notable (if not the most notable). Plenty of sources that can be borrowed from the Russian wiki article to improve ours.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 23, 2015; 19:04 (UTC)
Strong keep - more than meets GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:04, 23 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) JAaron95 (Talk) 14:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Blake[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has notable co-writing credits which fits under WP:COMPOSER. Karst (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I recreated the article after previous deletions because I felt I had found enough independent and reliable sources for a stub biography article for this individual of whom I had known nothing about beforehand. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:22, 23 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, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jith Dominic Jose[edit]

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

Doesn't appear notable, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Google returns 23 hits, all of them social media or sites connected with the films listed in the article. Incidentally, considering his career appears to fall completely within 2015, it's odd that the references are dated 2007. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's likely they're dated 2007 because the referencing was copied from somewhere else much like maintenance tags sometimes having another date because they were copied from another page. My searches found nothing to suggest this man has received considerable coverage even in the slightest and IMDb only has a page for a "Jose Dominic" (one movie One Day in Cochin in 2008). SwisterTwister talk 18:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable autobio. Author also edits under User talk:JithDominicJose04. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet any notability requirements. Kharkiv07 (T) 14:31, 25 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 delete as a copyright violation of http://www.engineersgarage.com/articles/what-is-android-introduction Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Programming in Android[edit]

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

This page looks like a page from a programming text book and is written as such. WP:NOTGUIDE Poltair (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikiversity. Not appropriate for the encyclopedia, but it looks like it might be useful learning material, as long as it isn't copyrighted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Android (operating system): Essay style article. --Anar chyte 11:34, 19 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) JAaron95 (Talk) 14:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Very Christmas Story[edit]

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

I'm bringing this to deletion again because notability standards for films have become far more strict since 2009. Ultimately the film received some light coverage in Polish language newspapers, but that seems like that was about it- it never seems to have gained any reviews, awards, or the type of thing that Wikipedia now requires for notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the director's page has been repeatedly deleted for a lack of notability, including at a 2009 AfD. My opinion on his notability is mixed, but I don't know that this specific film warrants an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep per being a suitable stub and just meeting the criteria required by WP:NF. Notable to and in Poland through Polish language sources (see WP:NONENG) is just fine with en.Wikipedia. [4][5][6] That the director's article was deleted is immaterial, as this deletion discussion is not about him, it's about a film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that this is some insanely light coverage and this seems to be the extent of what this film received. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also screened on television,[7] and may remain a stub for a while, as this is almost as difficult as finding coverage for Indian films of the same period. But it does appear to have received a Gdynia Golden Lion nomination in 2001 as 'Best Film'. With that, I would prefer input from Polish Wikipedians about non-English coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If they can find more evidence than was brought up at the prior AfD, I'm not opposed to withdrawing the nomination. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ; looks updated after the afd. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was, thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:04, 25 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, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robinsons Place Ozamiz[edit]

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

I don't see in the mall will opened Robinsons Ozamiz has been Sockpuppet Master of TV5Ozamiz Oripaypaykim (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - All my searches News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary found no good results aside from mentions for other places with this name "Robinsons Place" (all related results of course "soon to open"). I would've suggested drafting but, unless this is confirmed and will open, I'm not seeing much. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't understand what the nominator said, but it does look like this mall does not exist, not even on paper.--RioHondo (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax and the product of the sockpuppet of a blocked editor. This mall does not exist. Efforts to clean the article up probably make it ineligible for a G5 speedy. Both puppeteer and puppet are responsible for multiple hoaxes. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Epeefleche (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently a hoax. I can tell that it is a hoax because there's no mention of Ozamiz anywhere on Robinson Malls' website. If the mall is indeed "opening soon" like what is suggested by online searches, there would have been a mention somewhere on the official website. If the mall eventually exists in the future, the title could be recreated as a redirect to the Robinsons Malls article. But that's an if. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:36, 25 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) 21:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary censorship[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that this is a notable term. Plenty of sources write the words 'arbitrary censorship' but I don't see any discussing it as a concept. Sam Walton (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a phrase that's used quite often (usually by people who oppose some action that vaguely resembles censorship), but it doesn't represent a distinct concept. It's just censorship that's arbitrary, and there's nothing more to it than that. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "arbitrary" is just an opinion. We might as well have an article on "Stupid politician" or whatever. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Steve Dufour and my finding of no reasonable sources found for the term "arbitrary censorship" in a search engine.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 21 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 delete per WP:CSD#G5 - article created by a confirmed sockpuppet of FlowerStorm48 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sohin Shah[edit]

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

This is the sort of article that a dog would bark loudly at - it has sources, but they seem to be puffed up to try and make an article stick. I smell paid advocacy. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:45, 19 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. Now that the article is in draft space, there's no reason to keep the AfD open. If desired, the draft can be nominated for deletion at WP:MfD, but it probably won't be deleted there. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 15:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Face of Idoma[edit]

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

Subject of the article is a non-notable, local beauty pageant that fails WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft if needed as my first searches immediately found no better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article has been moved to Draft:Face of Idoma through a series of moves. ~ Rob^Talk 17:27, 22 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) 21:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of karnataka[edit]

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

Not notable, seems like the creator has a grudge against the government. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree; this is a hoax article. --Sreejith K (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. ansh 666 17:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's nothing good to suggest this can be saved and the best my first searches found was some News links. SwisterTwister 05:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Nom. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:21, 23 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 (trout slap to me). Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loveth Ayila[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Nigeria had been eliminated and she did not play in the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep According to the article (and FIFA), she passes WP:NFOOTY as she has played for Nigeria three times. Please read articles more carefully before nominating. Number 5 7 16:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since she is a Nigerian international, the article meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Played already for the national team. MbahGondrong (talk) 18:03, 19 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 Traverse City, Michigan#Education. Consensus is to redirect nn schools and plus Redirect is preffered over deletion/ (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Pathfinder School[edit]

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

Nothing special about this elementary school that I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect per WP:NSCHOOL. The only source used is the school website. Upon further investigation, I couldn't find any independent sources that establish its notability.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Godsy. This looks like it could've just been copied from the school's website. Cites no sources, entirely promotional, not notable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Traverse City, Michigan#Education where it is mentuioned. Per standard procedure as documented at OUTCOMES. (Clarityfiend, Rhododendrites, and Godsy appear not to be aware of this long-standing practice and that 'Redirect' is anchored in policy). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: I have no issue with a redirect (added it to my original post), thanks for bringing that up. What policy, if you don't mind me asking? I always like to increase my awareness on stuff like that.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If my memory serves me right, it's somewhere in WP:DELETION. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: A delete !vote doesn't preclude a redirect -- only one that retains the history. Generally speaking, if an article is deleted at AfD but is mentioned appropriately in another article to which it makes sense to redirect (a school in an article about the town being a good example), you don't need a close as redirect in order to just create the redirect. I'm not sure what point you're making with "redirect is anchored in policy" and allusion to WP:DELETION, but I certainly don't oppose a redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites, I know the policy inside out. For anyone who still can't find it or who has difficulty in understanding the princile involved, the policy is at WP:ATD-R. But one needs to click the link and read it . --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: ?? I didn't challenge your understanding of a policy and don't think anybody had difficulty understanding. "Redirect because there's a sensible page that mentions the subject" is not so complicated :) Hence the first part of my reply was explaining that I don't oppose a redirect and that a delete !vote doesn't preclude redirect. My confusion comes from the second part of your !vote argument, simply on the level of sentence comprehension. After mentioning precedent, you added "and that 'Redirect' is anchored in policy". Your presentation and bolding makes it look like a second point/argument that you're saying we aren't aware of. I just don't know what that clause means. What point about redirect is made by which policy? ...Unless you're just expressing doubt that we know redirect is a viable AfD outcome/!vote... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, Rhododendrites, precisely. And, BTW, I certainly do doubt that many participants at AfD know that 'redirect' is a viable AfD outcome - anchored in policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood you as well, and knew that was a valid outcome. I took you to mean that policy dictated a redirect in this case.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be hard for anyone who wishes to participate in AfD to familiarise themselves with the policies. 'Anchored' in this context means, for a fluent user of English, that 'redirect' is covered by policy and unambiguously so. Equally, anyone who is aware of valid policies or guidelines should be able to implement them without fear of rebuttal. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Right. It looked like an argument being presented rather than strictly a condescension. I suppose I should also add that "'delete' is anchored in policy" as well, in case there's confusion :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

for a fluent user of English - In the context of an AfD and your argument, this fluent speaker of English was not able to assume the degree of condescension required to interpret your sentence in the present context. Perhaps it was unintentional, but you're only being more insulting now. Since we ultimately do not disagree concerning the redirect in this particular case, let's just move on? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: You made the assumption that three users weren't aware that a redirect was a valid outcome, a bold and perhaps undue assertion. Personally I don't think "anchored" was a good or clear choice of wording. Secondly, policy states deletion is not required, not that it shouldn't sometimes be done. Redirecting is a "long-standing practice", but I wouldn't say it needs to go that way in this case. As I plan to remain civil, and this conversation is almost going down another path, that'll be all I have to say. Take the last word if you like.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:54, 21 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqui Jacoby[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Also concerned by amount of WP:SPA editors on this article; seems to be promotion. Boleyn (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All of those awards are extremely obscure and focused on a very small niche. I almost nominated the article myself while I was trying to clean it up some. The Dissident Aggressor 15:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There is a review in USA Today of her book, plus some coverage from her college days, overall however I don't see enough to meet the WP:GNG. Probably a good writer, though; bet she'll be back in WP if this article gets deleted, in a few years easily.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:43, 22 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, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Benson (businessman)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:BIO / WP:BASIC. All coverage of the individual is unreliable or merely mentions him in passing. Most of the sources available are simply promotional in nature and he has not received significant coverage from any reliable sources. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the content is cited to Bangalorean.net, which is not a reliable website but rather a site that parrots other websites without fact checking or editorial control. If this person's accomplishments were so great, they would have been documented in a wide range of independent, reliable sources. The lack of such coverage is a major warning flag. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as my searches consistently found that bangalorean.net link and even two searches "William Benson Tyche businessman" and "William Benson Tyche" simply found republished, primary or non-significant sources. Even the highbeam and Reuters link currently in the article are simply republished PR and no actual coverage (much less in-depth and significant) on their behalf. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search of "William Benson (businessman)" and "Billionaires Row (Champagne)" brings up 41 copies of the same press release and an article in a digital platform in which the company has an interest. Mannanan51 (talk) 03:18, 24 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Burdette[edit]

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

Nothing to suggest this particular coach is notable and at beast should be moved instead to Kim Zmeskal. My searches found nothing good aside from browser with some gymnastics websites, News and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree KiwikiKiWi (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Facebook is not a reliable source. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kim Zmeskal. He is only notable for co-owning an institution with her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 22 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) 21:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Ortiz Longo[edit]

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

A puff piece, heavily edited by someone who appears to be very involved with the subject. Being an aerospace engineer does not make one notable, and this person does not pass the GNG. Delete this as a resume/vanity piece about a non-notable person. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I absolutely agree with the nominator in the sense that it seems as if Carlos Ortiz Longo, a friend or someone related to the subject has injected content to the article which is considered as a COI. I believe the subject to be notable because of his scientific written works and the awards received by NASA. That is the reason for which I removed any COI and POV content from the article. As I stated before, a lot of content seems to have been added by the subject or someone known to him. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with that is that Wikipedia's notability standards require substantial coverage about him, and works by him are not good enough. As for "awards received by NASA" (by which I assume you mean "awards received from NASA", awards given by an organisation to its own employees are not a great indication of notability, and in Wikipedia's terms they are again of no value unless there is significant coverage in independent sources about his receiving the awards; there is nothing whatever in the article to suggest that there is any such independent coverage. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete even after the supposed COI clean up, the article still fails to support the subject's notability. Also, it's completely based on dead links (that seemed to be trivial profiles of the subject) --damiens.rf 02:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Rather than a speedy delete, I recommend a two-week period, during which editors could search for links and additional documentation for notability. Sarason (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. But what's yours keep's rationale? --damiens.rf 03:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Sarason, the usual practice is to do exactly what you say but for just one week, rather than two. If nobody can manage to find sources in a week, is there really a very great chance that they can do so in two weeks? In my experience, if a subject is really notable by Wikipedia standards, a few minutes are usually enough to find evidence, and a couple of days are usually plenty. (That sometimes doesn't apply to older subjects, where information must be sought in old books etc, and there is little if anything on the internet, but that is unlikely to be the case for someone who until a few years ago was in a position in a major technological organisation.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The multiple awards hew has received are a way for the scientific community, his peers, to provide "coverage" about his prominence. Pr4ever (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "multiple awards" you mention are all awards received from the company he works in (NASA). As said above "awards given by an organisation to its own employees are not a great indication of notability". There isn't third part coverage about these awards, and Wikipedia shouldn't be the first to do so. --damiens.rf 12:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This has the appearance of being about a mid-level scientific manager with a bunch of employee-of-the-week awards. Nothing in the article rises to the level of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - web searches turn up directories and social media, news searches yield nothing, article doesn't indicate why he should be notable, just another NASA employee. Kraxler (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 05:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person appears to be an outstanding NASA engineer who has had a productive career. Kudos to him and his friends and family. However, I see no evidence that he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If evidence to the contrary is provided, I will be happy to change my recommendation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability criteria are not met here. —Swpb^talk 14:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he seems like a great guy, but not notable. Kharkiv07 (T) 14:34, 25 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) 21:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Wenjun (designer)[edit]

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

After several source searches, does not appear to meet WP:BASIC to qualify for an article. Note that 524 Studio, which Wenjun founded, is also nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/524 Studio. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self promotional piece. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASIC. --Antigng (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, all my first searches (News, Books and highbeam) found nothing good aside from a passing mention. I doubt good sources exist in Chinese because overall it seems he is not notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 20 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) 21:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exposé clone[edit]

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

No real value here. A list of internal links to articles people will never write (that will likely be deleted if they are written) and a link of external links to sites for software that aren't notable enough to have their own articles (some of them dead links, some of them pointing to software that hasn't been touched for years). Any notable clones of Expose are mentioned in the Mission Control (OS X) article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the utter and complete lack of notability, not of the software pieces themselves (maybe they are notable, maybe they are not), but of the concept itself (problem of inherited notability). Should it be kept, rename to "list of Exposé clones".

Redlinks currently in the article are not really a problem: they could just be unlinked. Tigraan (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks are a problem for notability - nearly all WP software lists now contain only notable, bluelinked items, per WP:LSC. If the redlinked items were removed, this list would only have 2 items.Dialectric (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would advocate unlinking them, not removing them, per WP:CSC #2/#3 (exhaustive list of unnotable members of a notable group), if the concept was notable. You cannot seriously contend that Anthabounce which is redlinked poses a bigger problem than Switcher which is not linked at all. (I am not saying Swicher is less notable, I am saying "remove all redlinked entries" is weird.)

I do not think the article meets the notability criteria, though. Tigraan (talk) 09:03, 26 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) JAaron95 (Talk) 14:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Raneri[edit]

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

not noteable Lucas559 (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here are a few sources: Billboard, Asbury Park Press, American Songwriter, Punknews. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just the sources above provide enough coverage to pass GNG. They may need to be better incorporated into the article, but Raneri clearly is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 21 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 stubify. There are no suggestions for stubification; the consensus is towards keep; however, the promotional language needs to be addressed. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Rancheria Casino Resort[edit]

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

Promotional article full of puffery. . Almost the entire content , is based upon a thoroughly unreliable source--their own web page. DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - presently an advertisement masquerading as an article. Even if sufficiently cleaned up, I've found no independent reliable sources to establish notability. I see trivial coverage (stories about people winning money, passing mentions in articles about gambling law changes, etc) but nothing in-depth. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 20:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources that I believe satisfy WP:GNG: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] Toohool (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - also ridiculous, but only slightly less absurd, than proposing the article about their reservation be deleted. [19], [20] —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This could potentially be selectively merged to Jackson Rancheria, if Jackson Rancheria is not deleted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that an article has a promotional tone and lacks reliable sources is an argument to improve the article, not an argument to delete it. Toohool (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- Promotional wording is not a valid reason for article's deletion via WP:AfD. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I favor keeping articles about major Native American business ventures. Independent sources are available, and any promotional material can be removed through the normal editing process. Disclosure: I once stayed at this resort during a business visit to the Jackson, California area. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 19 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) 21:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AutoPortal[edit]

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

Insufficient depth of sustained coverage to meet WP:COMPANY. There are no serious articles where this company is the main subject, only passing mention in articles on the general topic of internet car classifieds. Much of the hits on autoportal.com are only press releases and blog posts consisting of copied press releases. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as it hasn't received significant coverage with my searches providing the best results here and here. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 19 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) 21:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CarDekho[edit]

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

One substantive article about an acquisition is not enough to meet WP:COMPANY. Needs sustained, in-depth coverage in independent sources. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe draft (userspace is not an option as the user was SPA) but I simply don't see much solid notability from my searches here, here, here and here. It's gotten some attention recently for the app and acquisition but I think we can wait until it gets some more attention. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 19 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) 21:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dewey Lemley[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as the mayor of a small town (pop. 12K) which is not large enough to confer an automatic WP:NPOL pass on its mayors. Further, the article as written consists solely of a single sentence asserting his existence, and rests on a single source which merely namechecks his existence in the process of actually being about something else — so this isn't sourced nearly well enough to claim WP:GNG instead. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. The mayor of my hometown of 20,000 has far more coverage, but I will restrain myself and not write an article about him. The same principle applies here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is very, very far below the notability guidelines for mayors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 22 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) 21:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

524 Studio[edit]

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

Does not have the kind of coverage needed to establish notability according to WP:GNG or WP:ORG. The fact that Zhou Wenjun has won an award does not necessarily make him or his company notable. ubiquity (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, concluded after several source searches. Note that I also performed searches for the company's founder, Zhou Wenjun (designer), which did not provide significant coverage. That article is nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhou Wenjun (designer). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable and it seems that this article and the other one about the was written by the same person, possibly the founder himself. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 05:28, 19 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) JAaron95 (Talk) 15:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lidija Turčinović[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBASKETBALL. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASKETBALL. No established notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC) I change my vote to keep though the article needs more references.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't understand WP:BASKETBALL. Why is it only about men's leagues or American leagues? They don't care about European championships? She was part of two winning teams and a silver at the world championships. She plays in the top women's league in France. KiwikiKiWi (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. She plays in a top women's league in France. I added a ref. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep when I Google search there appear to be ample References in French. References don't have to be in English. Rikster2 (talk) 11:45, 22 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Drew[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Most of the current bombardment of sources either don't mention him or mention him in passing. There are none that give him any depth of independent coverage. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soulspazm. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Essentially there's no good coverage and my multiple searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing good aside from this when I searched about Phil's Steaks. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 20 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) 21:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion Longboards[edit]

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

Non notable company. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources outside of a little local interest coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing that shows notability for this company. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Unfortunately, my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found no good coverage about this and I would've suggested moving elsewhere if there was a good target. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 20 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. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Arévalo[edit]

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

I'm nominating on behalf of another user who didn't complete the AfD properly. Sources now in the article we restored after the AfD was originally incorrectly filed. Original issue was on notability, many of the sources refer to the centre rather than him. Additionally, there may be BLP1E issues relating to the deaths. Ged UK 10:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Guillermo - apart from being one of the more famous Amazonian shaman in the world has also stared in movies like: Renegade Other Worlds Ayahuasca: Vine of the Soul and Aya: Awakenings - I think the article would use some more cites but is far from not being noteworthy enough for WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.20.116 (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC) — 75.170.20.116 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. We need coverage, not appearances in non-notable films. The subject would likely fail on the basis of WP:NACTOR anyway, but film appearances is not what supposedly makes him notable. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Guillermo is notable for many things aside from his film performances (which do make him notable) but as you can see in the WP bio alone there are plenty of published sources that indicate notability. I am not sure why this is in question at all. There are also a lot of published notable articles not yet sourced in the bio. I find it strange that someone would consider him not to be notable to be quite frank. Probably one of, if not the most notable Amazonian Shaman in the world right now. I have seen a lot of competiveness and libel among these shaman and I really wonder if this attempt to delete is not something along those lines, considering the original requester did not even know how to properly request the delete and went out of his way to do so. Guillermo has been a primary target for years due to his fame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.174.107 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 23 June 2015‎ — 63.155.174.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The reason this is being proposed for deletion is because the sources don't indicate notability of the person, but rather of a place. Please improve the article if you can, or explain which sources you believe indicate notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - People are really travelling long ways to meet him, it seems. There's this, this, this, the book he wrote, this, this, this, a whole chapter in a book, more in-depth coverage in another book, this and so on... Kraxler (talk) 19:11, 30 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Davewild (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managed Print Services[edit]

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

Promotional and using only poor sources, which do not equate to WP:RS. Fails to prove its own notability. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 19 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. Utilize your time and energy elsewhere people. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Ghai[edit]

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

Per request in ticket:2015042010005127 - personally, I have no opinion on the request. Reason was quoted as "I nominate the article for deletion as thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify the article have failed." Mdann52 (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Clearly meets WP:GNG, WP:DIRECTOR. Paisarepa (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Notable Producer/Director of Hindi cinema. Soham321 (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Highly notable film-director in India —Vensatry _(ping) 19:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm assuming the ticket is basically the subject wanting this deleted ? .... Anyway clearly meets GNG as well as DIRECTOR so see no reason to delete. –Davey2010^Talk 02:33, 25 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. Of note is that the nominator stated in a later comment, "you've pushed me to a Weak Keep on this article with strong support for an eventual merge with a more global article if one were to be created." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Socialtainer[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:NAD. Additionally, not a noteworthy enough term to warrant handling via transwiki, in my opinion. It hasn't significantly made its way into the English language from what I can find via search. BU Rob13 (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have found and added some more English language media sources, and feel this stub can be expanded further. It's a derivative of two English words, and it's popular usage and the Korean penchant for throwing in English words in their conversations, may qualify it as an international crossover word, (however it was derived - first in Korean, or in English). It certainly is being used abundantly in Korea, and due to it's being a hot button word for controversy, all the more reason it is interesting and notable.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the article remains something that is more suited for a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia, although with the additional sources I could agree that it should be subject to the transwiki process potentially rather than outright deleted. A wiktionary entry for "socialtainer" wouldn't be misplaced. The controversy has some substance, but I don't believe it alone achieves notability to warrant its own article. Celebrity could always be expanded to provide a more worldwide perspective on the role of celebrity in social and political issues, including the Korean idea of a socialtainer. BU Rob13 (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've plodded along and found an academic look at it, by Dongguk University. You may re-read the updates. I looked over Socialite on WP to see if there are any means of comparison, however, this popular wording is not nearly as old, and is currently limited to the small country of South Korea. I'm still hopeful for consensus to keep, however.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with you that Socialite is not a good fit. It seems these are more entertainer/activists than socialites, which is something prevalent in most cultures but that we don't have significant coverage on in a single page in Wikipedia. BU Rob13 (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you hit on what I was looking for, comparative cultures that use similar words for the same thing, that might help expand the page (which activist and philanthropist don't quite describe), but which this page might just be a start for....Anyway, I find it intriguing and will keep researching. And the social responses to it are mixed. If we had a page or name for it in English, it might well be called "Jane Fonda". I find the responses to it in the gradually opening closed society of Korea very interesting. But heck, I personally haven't resolved my issues over Tom Cruise and Scientology, or Charlton Heston and gun control...

One other page, I looked at, for a newly created "English" word was Sasaeng fan which deals with a Korean subject, but the word is based on a Korean word - not as in this case, on two English ones. The other page I looked at was Gigolo which was a French based word that must have gotten a start somewhere to become part of the English lexicon (if I'm using that word correctly).

I feel forever behind - for a Korean talk show that I created and update, one savy Korean editor updated the weekly topic with Lookism with the link to the page. I realized, as an English speaker, that I was aware of the theory for years, but didn't realize it had been given a name.

So, with this page, I wasn't surprised to find I'd never heard the expression, but felt inclined to remain open to it's possibilities. If it was just a "buzzword" it will go away, but even the amount of publicity it has already received, I feel, warrants my recognition.

Can I say here, I love WP because of discussions like we are having! Thank you!--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree it has the potential to be notable one day. For every Gigolo, though, there are many other terms that never fully cross over culturally or gain traction over a long period of time. If we were debating whether this term should be in an English-language dictionary, I'd say that WP:TOOSOON applies, as a result. Until the word takes some hold, I don't think the word itself is worth noting in a dictionary. That's kind of besides the point, though, since this is an encyclopedia.
The content of this article is notable in the sense that there should be an article in the project about the role of celebrities in social issues and the controversy that causes. It's an important cultural topic that I think easily warrants an article. With your substantial edits, I think that this article is now substantial enough to warrant a section in some article titled something like "Celebrity activists," which could discuss this in a larger global context. Since no such article exists yet, and I'm nowhere near expert enough on this cultural issue to create one, you've pushed me to a Weak Keep on this article with strong support for an eventual merge with a more global article if one were to be created. We can wait to see if anyone chimes in with different opinions, but I expect that idea is uncontroversial with your additional edits. Props on finding those sources, by the way. I searched for a while and wasn't finding much in English at all. BU Rob13 (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you are very gracious to understand what I was trying to say. It's weird how we are so limited to online sources, when my history in research was printed copy. Every now and then I find a Google book or something akin to a real book to reference. I'm attuned to "proper sources" for Korean articles, participating on Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea and a blanket search can yield lots of crazy stuff. I haven't searched this one in Korean language, and know it is inundated with references that are acceptable on most Korean related articles. I appreciate you pushing me to continue the search in English. Time and other editors will see if we bought the winning ticket.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 04:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable term in South Korean show business. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 04:33, 22 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) 21:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hamed Zarei[edit]

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

Not enougn coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. He is only an Associate Professor and does not appear to be highly cited so does not pass WP:PROF. Jbh ^Talk 16:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article now claims he is a 'Full Professor' but does not state where he is a professor or what he is a professor of. Jbh ^Talk 19:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in dpeth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:N, WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 03:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. No signs of notability. --Anar chyte 11:51, 26 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) 20:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aurélie Salvaire[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO Antigng (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of her actions really rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My sweeps of international news, news from Spain, the US, turned up nothing. I did not check the references in the current article but they did not look like anything I would need to check, but if I am wrong, please make a case and I could change my mind.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:37, 26 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. English Wikipedia does not need to follow the lead of French Wikipedia, even for French subjects, and a person's notability in accordance with English Wikipedia guidelines is independent of their country or language, but the consensus here is to delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Van Darc[edit]

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

Lack of notoriety. Self-promotion. Xxxxx (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment only: The article looks like a manager's tearsheet, but if all those credits are valid, then he's going to have a huge French language profile. Someone should check him out at .fr. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
. I am french and i read french. this guy is just a noboby, like a total D list in french télévision. He never had his own show, it's absolutely impossible to know il all thèse crédits are valid because there is no proofs about and all the references in the article are Mostly from cheap blogs (like Morandini). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.239.73.7 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 13 June 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not a fluent French speaker but both from my results and the French speaker above, it's likely he's not notable and this article can't be improved significantly; he has no IMDb profile and my searches found the best results here and here (nothing at Books and Highbeam). SwisterTwister talk 18:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI don't quite understand the vendetta here against this guy. I happen to be French and he's one of my favourite hosts. He IS quite well known as a presenter- albeit not the most famous. A single google search here (http://www.google.fr/search?q=ALLAN+VAN+DARC&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=CVuFVdChDsXbU4rzgNAJ) will clear the matter as there are a number of references to his name from TV listings and several extracts from his TV shows. Another search in the "news" section (http://www.google.fr/search?q=ALLAN+VAN+DARC&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=CVuFVdChDsXbU4rzgNAJ) also has plenty of recent articles with video proof of his current work. 82.234.176.100 (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - What a joke... Seriously, you must be Allan Van Darc. And your attempts to make your promotion on Wikipedia, like you do in french Wikipedia, is really problematic. 1/ No, Allan Van Darc is absolutely not famous. In any way. Ask to anyone in the streets in France : nobody knows this guy. 2/ Extracts from his TV shows or TV listings are not valid sources. You put these extracts on the internet, through your youtube channel, to promote yourself. And like the others things, these are only primary sources.--Xxxxx (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I don't think you are also meant to !vote. Maybe you got confused with the French deletion discussion where you are not the nominator. Don't worry though. I'll very happily replace your "delete" with of my own. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks !--Xxxxx (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

indeed : Comment made by nominator, so should be disregarded and deleted.

Strong Delete. French Wikipedia has something equivalent to an AfD on their article too: [21]. I don't read French but Google Translate makes it quite clear that the French speaking people there with full access to French media do not think that he is notable. The only keep !vote so far is from the author of the French article. So that brings us to the claim that he is also famous in the UK. Well, I am in the UK. Admittedly, I don't pay much attention to D list celebs but maybe my "I never heard of him" counts for something. OK, maybe not? So lets see what else we have? The article says "Whilst living in London, he wrote and recorded a comedy song in reference to Australian popstar Kylie Minogue under the name Van d'Arc. This novelty record earned him a tremendous amount of publicity in the UK, Australia and Germany." (emphasis mine). That means that either we see "tremendous" English language coverage for him under the name "Van d'Arc" or the claim is flat out spurious. Google News says spurious. How about "Ode To The Bottom"? Well, that is referenced to a YouTube video with only 2,643 views and no comments even from outraged Kylie fans. The video does not seem to identify what channel it was broadcast on (I didn't watch all of it). Google News suggests that it made an almost imperceptible media splash. So what do we have here? An article that makes demonstrably spurious claims of notability, made by single purpose accounts on both the English and French Wikipedias. While we can't rule out the possibility that he has a small fanbase, and that these articles emanate from that, it seems more likely that this is self-publicity or publicity from somebody connected to him. I wasn't aware that spam held such a place in French cuisine. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. The french AfD notice was initiated by user Xxxxx under unlogged IP address, minutes prior to putting this one up. This contributor didn't appreciate that his modifications on this original article (which was created years ago with no problem whatsoever) were cancelled, and decided to organize a wiki campaign against this article.

2. You claim to have searched "google news" to find trace of a 2003 event ? Please be informed that google news only indexes recent events, and that in 2003 (12 years ago) things weren't thoroughly referenced as they are today, as google and other search engines were only in their infancy. The novelty song in reference was the subject of numerous TV appearances, two of them are online, one of them hosted by no less than TERRY WOGAN on Channel 5. TERRY WOGAN interview Allan Van Darc Had you bothered to watch the interview, you would have quickly realized that a number of references are made to the "tremendous" coverage received by the song at the time.

3. As for the "imperceptible splash", please note than no later than 2 months ago, a video feature about Van Darc's meeting with Minogue went viral and found its place on respected international websites such as Hufftington Post

HUFFTINGTON POST Kylie Minogue meets Van D'Arc

4. Away from that novelty nonsense, Van Darc has actually hosted of over 1000 TV programmes on French national free-to-air channels. The very official website for INA (National Institute of Audiovisual) which is similar to the BBC archives has no less than 1052 entries referencing his name.

VAN DARC search on INA database Granted, he might not be an outright household name, but certainly deserves a bit more credit/consideration than what can be read on here. His current daily TV endeavours for French channel Non Stop People and respected 24H news channel LCI can be found http://www.bfmtv.com/mediaplayer/video/rolandgarros-2015--les-stars-aussi-ont-leur-tournoi-exclu-vido-557073.html and here LCI Allan Van Darc et Kylie Minogue

--92.90.182.139 (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google News does indeed prioritise recent events but it also has an "archive" option that shows stuff going back far further than maybe you think. I have used that to research news far in the past. This fails to show the coverage claimed, You can't blame Google for not giving the result you would like. Sources like YouTube are not reliable references and the Huffington Post will publish pretty much anything (which is not a criticism, just an indication that not everything they publish is notable). Terry Wogan has interviewed many thousands of people in his long career and not all of them are notable either. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The French article has now been deleted. That does not mean that we definitely have to do the same but I would take it as a strong indication. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable in French-speaking countries, even less notable in English speaking countries. Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:02, 29 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 merge to Rock Hill, South Carolina. (non-admin closure) JAaron95 (Talk) 04:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piedmont Medical Center[edit]

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

local hospital that fails WP:ORG. most coverage is routine like treating a patient. LibStar (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: There are other "Piedmont Medical Center"s out there, too. Certainly there's a Piedmont Hospital in Atlanta (or was when I lived there). No scandals, crises, miracles, or novel practices to have generated coverage of this center as itself and by itself, so fails the notability guidelines for a corporation. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect per user:Northamerica1000 would be acceptable, although I'm not crazy about reserving the name space with the redirect. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Rock Hill, South Carolina. Worth a mention there as part of the city's medical and emergency care establishments. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 19 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anshuman Ajai Singh[edit]

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

And another puff piece related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajai R. Singh (2nd nomination): that Singh is the subject's father. This Singh had a bit part in a movie (our article ironically proves that it was a very, very small role), and a reference in a newspaper or two don't make him any more notable. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom says it all. Part of a walled garden. --Randykitty (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Agent Vinod - Although there's a chance a user will restore this again, why not simply move it to his only and best known role (until this actor can advance a little more with acting)? My searches found nothing good including here and one PR at browser. SwisterTwister talk 17:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His role in Agent Vinod is not notable enough for a redirect. Obviously this is without prejudice against recreation if he appears in more films or other circumstances conspire to make him notable, including Agent Vinod becoming such a popular movie that people publish indepth articles detailing the lives of all the actors in it in reliable sources. However as of now A A Singh is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 21 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shakuntala Singh[edit]

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

Puff piece related to that on the subject's husband; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajai R. Singh (2nd nomination). None of the claims in the article make her notable, and there is no coverage to suggest she passes WP:PROF or WP:GNG--the sourcing is primary. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A puff piece indeed! I don't see anything that would make this person notable, but even if there would be something buried in all the fluff, WP:TNT would apply big time. Nuke it! --Randykitty (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My sweep of Indian news sources did not find much. The current version of the article (June 21) has no checkable references that I can see. Fails WP:BLP; no indication of WP:NOTE--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:57, 21 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) 20:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swara Sampada[edit]

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

Not a notable hobby club, and no coverage to suggest that it is. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Has in fact received local media coverage, there's a source in the article that shows it. TheGoldenMolder (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this, on a blog? It's pretty well established that one single article isn't enough to prove an outfit is notable, and "local" typically doesn't cut it either. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since this was last nominated for deletion in 2008. A lot has changed. I'm satisfied as to its notability now. TheGoldenMolder (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One blog post does not notability make. --Randykitty (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from the Hindustan Times link, all I found was an IndiaGlitz at both News and browser while Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing. Basically, this has not received actual good third-party coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyyouoverthere (talk • contribs) 05:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources in the article:
The Hindustan Times blog post, "Bathroom singers who turned into stage singers", is the only reliable source about the subject. If there were more sources like this one, I would support keeping the article.
Cunard (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. My searches for sources on Google, Google News, and Google Books returned nothing useful. There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Swara Sampada to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:09, 27 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. Does not appear to meet notability requirements at this time. Nakon 23:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Taub[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Partner with Lex Kogan whose article is also up for deletion. One article in the Huffington Post outside of the blogs and industry publications. No real notability that I can obtain from the sources. TTTommy111 (talk) 03:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak enfeebled keep~~: The article needs pruning shears, but there is also AlterNet. I don't consider that a very reliable source, as AlterNet has junk and pearls, but there seems some infamy mixed with notoriety involved here, so I deplore the promotional aspects of the article, but I think the continued practice of this fringe treatment is getting coverage. The same is not true, though, of the super-duper pioneering Lex Kogan. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hithladaeus: ibogaine is indeed notable; that does not automatically mean its practitioners are. The AlterNet is not about Taub, and contains five sentences actually about him. Not much in the way of depth. VQuakr (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: I got that, but it seemed to me that the doctor was being mentioned/discussed by the other articles as "bad guy still at large by ducking enforcement going overseas." That would paradoxically help him with his core audience, of course, but it seemed like he was crossing over into the monkey gland territory. Since advertising is prohibited, and since the practice depends on online buzz, and since the article contained promotional material, I'll strike my weak keep and move to neutral. I still think he's awfully close to being notable. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ibogaine#Research; insufficient coverage for a stand-alone article. VQuakr (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Apologies, I did not realize that there were two discussions going on about this. This article is 100% legit; the reliable third-party sources have plenty to bear on his notability. This discussion has centered around the Alternet source, for which there is a single sentence at the end, that actually is about Deborah Mash's criticisms of Eric Taub. There are two other reliable sources, and the Huffington Post article entirely centers around Taub and his significance in bringing ibogaine use in the Americas. NittyG (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient evidence of notability. Only one source seems to provide significant coverage of the subject, which is not enough. Rlendog (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think a redirect is necessary because the redirect target doesn't mention Taub, and I don't see a reason it would need to. Rlendog (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based on the comment below, a redirect to Ibogaine#History could be appropriate, since Taub is mentioned there, though not in the Reserch section. Rlendog (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - I'm assuming with the relisting I have to vote again and restart the discussion. I see there has been one vote to delete by Rlendog, who said there is only one source. There is not one source in this article, there are three reliable third-party publications that mention Taub's notability, with one entirely centering around him. Also, by the way, the article on ibogaine does mention Taub under #History, which I added along with this article (Taub is at the center of the history of ibogaine). The Huffington Post article is about Taub, and has not been addressed still. And the Alternet article is about the ibogaine movement, and says "Eric Taub is considered, along with Lotsof and Mash, to be one of the three main luminaries of the ibogaine movement..." The article from Huffington Post is entirely about Taub. And the article from Treatment Magazine says "...Lex Kogan, arguably the leading proponent of Ibogaine treatment, along with his partner Eric Taub". (Note: please forget about Lex Kogan, that is a separate discussion; this discussion is about Eric Taub, and while this was the only sentence I could find that explicitly mentions Kogan's notability (that being the grounds for the article on Lex Kogan to be deleted), this sentence does equally note Taub's significance, along with two other reliable sources.) NittyG (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to vote again. The prior comments remain part of the discussion. Rlendog (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since this is a non-mainstream treatment, it will be hard to find mainstream sources of information. However, so far we have only blogs and mentions of Taub. I see no reason for an article about him. I also suspect that the article on Ibogaine will end up being mainly about controversy, but will be logically the primary point for information. LaMona (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks multiple, indepth, reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and also any depth in sources. Looks like his partner already got deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:03, 29 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Marquise[edit]

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

There's nothing to actually suggest this "artist" is notable outside of the controversy and (the controversy of) her sexual activities. The article is fluffed by the current sources and they're not even significant sources, with none of them focusing on her career as a "singer-songwriter". The best my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found was News finding several links but they're not significant. SwisterTwister talk 00:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: except for WP:BLP1E (the subject's activities weren't "events"), if a person meets WP:BASIC for any other reason (in this case, sexual activities), then he/she is suitable for a standalone article. There are several sources that establish notability under WP:BASIC. Esquivalience ^t 01:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though some of the few sources by notable publications aren't even good quality news, basically it seems maybe she got the best coverage for the Usher phone charging controversy. This article has so many issues, I'm not sure it's worth keeping. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tend to disagree here. The artist's art is about the process of transgressing consumption/commodification, and in particular in the context of social media. Therefore, completely unsurprisingly, bloggers like to talk about it and then feign surprise that they're a part of it. Since they're both the cullies and the subjects of the art-as-process, their surprise is about as meaningful as a toddler's upon finding a mirror. However, it means that their references are going to multiply. This is going to be a go-to reference in an era of monetized clicks. Assessing by the artist standard results as a fail. Assessing as a phenomenon is to agree that the person is a commodity. I completely understand if others don't agree. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weak delete, don't see any solid references in current version as of Jun 21 2015 so why is the article practically two pages long? Looks like advertising to me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC) Changing to Keep based on references provided by User:Cunard. Article still needs serious trimming.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More of an advertising piece. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Schuster, Dana (2015-02-08). "Dominatrix fears 'Fifty Shades' will hurt her business". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2015-06-27. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
2. Costello, Carolyn (2015-02-10). "Inside a real BDSM dungeon in NYC". WPIX. Archived from the original on 2015-06-27. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
3. Spanier, Ian (2015-04-22). "Right Next Door: Lena Marquise, "Mistress Lady Wednesday"". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 2015-06-27. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
4. Setoodeh, Ramin (2015-02-11). "'Fifty Shades of Grey': A Dominatrix Reviews the Sex Scenes". Variety. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
  The article notes:
  But how realistic is the sex in “Fifty Shades?” To help answer that question, I took along an expert to an early screening in New York this week. Lena Marquise, who goes by the stage name “Mistress Lady Wednesday,” has worked as a dominatrix for a decade (she charges up to $500 an hour). Here’s what the 29-year-old had to say about the movie.
  This is not significant coverage but can be used to verify facts in the article.
5. Duran, Jose D. (2014-12-05). "Meet Lena Marquise, the Performance Artist Behind the Vagina Phone Charger (NSFW)". Miami New Times. Archived from the original on 2015-06-27. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
6. Dickson, EJ (2014-12-04). "Usher went to Art Basel and charged his phone in a lady's vagina". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on 2015-06-27. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lena Marquise to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I'm still not seeing the notability and I'm not sure how good reviewing Fifty Shades of Grey that makes to notability. She's notable for being a dominatrix? SwisterTwister talk

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The sources I provided above provide this coverage, so that's where I see the notability.
The review of Fifty Shades of Grey indicates that her opinion on the topic as a dominatrix is respected by Variety. Though the Variety article doesn't establish notability (the other sources that provide significant coverage do), I am including it here as an additional data point for editors to consider. Cunard (talk) 02:30, 28 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. Michig (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben de Guzman[edit]

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

Bypassed AfC submission. No extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources. Frankly, besides the DEC and NQAPIA themselves (and a few other organizations he's involved with), I can't find sources about him. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's too bad, but I just can't find any RS on this person using the "normal" searches. The refs here are either blogs or writings by Guzman. This is obviously a difficult area to establish notability, since we're talking about a minority within a minority. However, there need to be better sources than we find here. The other option, since this is a new article, is to 'userfy and perhaps the creator of the article can find some stronger sources. LaMona (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources demonstate notability for Guzman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 22 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 merge to A Prairie Home Companion. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dworsky[edit]

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

Appears to be pretty much a cut and paste from subject's web site at http://www.richarddworsky.com/bio.html The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Fails WP:RADIO. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree on the issue of notability. We're talking about the "Prairie Home Companion" juggernaut, and since 1984. Want to bet there are profiles of the guy? However, the article as it is is useless, as it's non-encyclopedic in every possible way. As the nominator says, it's "cute": a cut and paste of the subject's personal page, a lede that speaks in impressionistic terms, and claims that are buried at the end. The subject should almost certainly have an article, given the staggering audience (multiplied by the decades), but this article is dreadful. Hithladaeus (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for Richard Dworsky at the StarTribune and City Pages and found no profiles. In fact, only a handful of mentions of him in PHC articles. And it looks like he would be just web competent enough to include a link to the story on his website if there was a profile of him. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've reverted to a version before the cut paste from his web site. No copyright violations allowed. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the show he is on, lacks independent notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to A Prairie Home Companion. Content is verifiable. See this search for starters. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by NA1000. He's marginally notable, and then only for the radio show. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to A Prairie Home Companion although it looks like all the news mentions of him are just listing his name in PHC articles. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:13, 30 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 merge to JTS Topology Suite. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GEOS (software library)[edit]

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

Prodded; deprodded with lengthy assertion of notability on the talk page but no actual evidence. So the reason for deleting I gave in the prod still stands:

Not notable: No reliable sources or indication why its notable. Certainly no presumption of notability as free software libraries very rarely are. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable: Anonymous has written long description of notability of lib. on Talk:GEOS_(software_library), which I hereby include by reference. S/He probably didn't understand about the difference of this deletion talk page and that talk page. Lib is used in other projects. GangofOne (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page was created as the PROD was removed, which is a normal way to respond to a PROD. But it has nothing to support an assertion of notability. The 'references' are almost all links to Wikipedia which cannot be used as a source, except for a link to Google's documentation and to the company's web site, neither of which is a reliable secondary source. Checking 'what links here' almost none of the linked articles link to this one, which suggests that GEOS is not a significant component of them. I don't doubt it is used, perhaps even widely used, but it needs reliable sources saying so, and covering it in some depth.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

uhh - these comments are filled with apparently "wikipedia legalese" which I do not know.. however, I gather that the reviewer wants references from outside of WIkipedia.. I can supply those.. I (apparently mistakenly) thought that links to already-substantiated articles would mean something.. ok.. btw- the total number of desktop software users, for whom this library is .. how shall we say .. the definition of all geometry handling .. is greater than 100,000 users each month.. maybe not a big number for a twitter account, but a very very big number for serious science computation applications.. -- BrianMHamlin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.254.111.87 (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC) {— 142.254.111.87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Number of users is irrelevant. I mean Windows is used by tens or hundreds of millions of people, includes many libraries, but we don't have articles for all or even most libraries in Windows. Only the ones that are independently notable, as they meet the general notability guideline. So yes, if you have some good quality, in depth and independent sources then please add them to the article and use them to expand it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps merge with JTS Topology Suite ? GangofOne (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I can compromise.. adding this as a section to JTS seems fair.. I will discuss with colleagues BrianMHamlin 08 June 15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.174.127.109 (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have started editing the JTS page to include GEOS information. As agreed in the compromise (above), this GEOS page can be phased out after those edits are stable. -- BrianMHamlin

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banchbo Sharad Samman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG: non-notable award, no coverage from reliable sources. Esquivalience ^t 17:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to delete because there's actually not much about this award, a News search found some results but nothing recent (mostly 2011-2013), searches at Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing while browser found some of the same links in News and the article aside from this Kolkata Today. I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no target. SwisterTwister talk 20:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Google News is pretty poor for India, but I found a number of sources which look reliable, e.g. [22]. I'd love to see someone more familiar with the topic clean up the article - it's a mess right now. Pburka (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice your results are the same results I found. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 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) 06:44, 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) 07:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 19 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 Cheiron Studios. Nakon 23:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheiron Records[edit]

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

non-notable record label. No length of established history. No signed notable artists. Creator maintains it is an "official" re-creation, but there are no sources establishing that there is any relationship between this American record label and the defunct Swedish recording studio. The article tries to inherit notability, but name dropping does not notability make. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about a "new" record label, it is about the famous label itself. It just mentions that the fact that the label was revived in 2015 and is actively distributing music again. However, your premise is incorrect about it being a non-notable record label, as well as name dropping to inherit notability of the "defunct" famous entity, because the article is about the formerly defunct famous entity itself, including its distribution history with famous companies BMG and Zomba. There is no evidence of this record label being a "new" record label with the same name, and the article is primarily about the label's notable history, which nobody can dispute. Vote to KEEP with current references about label's history and more references added regarding its present music distribution. Music2015 (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, first sentence of the article "Cheiron Records is a United States based record label". Therefore the subject of the article is about this US operation. There are no sources that tie this US operation to the notable Cheiron Studios, or the Swedish record label (which does not appear to have established any notability outside of the Studio) by that name. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and restore redirect page - this company is non-notable. The article creator has still not proven the claimed historical ties to Cheiron Studios. At first it all seems to be true, but once one starts to dig, one discovers that there are too many things that just aren’t right about the company: on its website it claims to have members who have “direct ties back to the original Cheiron” onboard, but it does not mention any examples. It also presents informations that is untrue, for instance that Atlantic Hill Music is a world-renowned company (which it is not, it returns only 60 hits on Google). Cheiron is still described in Swedish media as defunct, almost a full year after the alleged revival (i.e. it does not seem like the original owners have been informed). To sum up: this company claims to be an official revival of the Swedish company, but it does not present any evidence (and I am unable to find any either). 84.209.76.114 (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not about a non-notable "new" company. Again, you are missing the point that the article is a stub article about the famous label which mentions that it was revived and is currently distributing music, something which is important for community readers to at least know. There is zero evidence of this label being a "new" record label with the same name, and the article is mostly about the label's history anyway. I do not know about the particulars of web information in smaller countries like Sweden, but in the UK and USA, web searches turn up much about Cheiron. I also have no idea why you are mentioning an "Atlantic Hill Music". What does that company have anything to do with Cheiron Records and its history/present? This is an article about Cheiron Records, not another company. You keep mentioning companies and individuals associated with the deleted Rocket articles, which is why I initially thought (no accusation though) you were a sock puppet of the blocked editors who created those articles, because you keep obsessing over them so much. The source you provided from this Swedish radio blog is hardly reliable as well, and is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Music2015 (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, no evidence whatsoever has ever been presented that links the current US company to the old Swedish company. They have the same name, that appears to be it. As such, it appears that this current version of Cheiron Records is merely trying to capitalize on the notoriety of the previous entity. The simple question is: Where is an independent, reliable source that ties these two organizations together? You keep stating it is about the label's history, but since this appears to be two separate and distinct organizations, the Swedish history is irrelevant and should not be included in the US company's history. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. 84.209.76.114 (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI that Swedish “radio blog” is actually Sveriges Radio, Sweden’s public radio broadcaster. For this documentary (Arvet efter Cheiron - en oändlig historia) and its predecessor (Cheiron - en popsaga), SR has interviewed people such as Max Martin, E-Type, Daniel Volle (Cheiron co-founder Dag Volle’s son) and Anne Catrine Volle (Dag Volle’s sister). These documentaries also include clips from archived interviews with Dag Volle. Web searches definitely provide lots of information about Cheiron, in Swedish as well as in English, but none of it is about this company. I mentioned “Atlantic Hill Music” because this Cheiron Music Group company describes it as a world-renowned company on its own website, which it is not. These companies seem to be closely related. They link to each other, their bosses have a father-in-law/son-in-law relation and currently this is the top story on Atlantic Hill Music’s website: “5/5/2015 - "DNA", the second single from Cheiron Records recording artist Anthony Gargiula, has been released worldwide. The song was produced by Tim Coons at the Atlantic Hill Music Studios in Orlando, FL. ” Point is: when they have shamelessly lied once, why not lie again? There are no independent, reliable sources to back up their claims (including the alleged ties to Cheiron Studios).

About the notability: Cheiron Records was a short-lived record label that released next to nothing. It is/was not notable and therefore does not have its own article. Cheiron became famous for its studio (Cheiron Studios). 84.209.76.114 (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I just find it a bit peculiar that you are now talking about an entirely different company which is not even mentioned in the Wiki article, and are using words such as "have shamelessly lied once" about it and then connecting it to Cheiron Records. Where are your reliable references about this Atlantic Hill Music company "shamelessly lying"? Is that a provable fact beyond a Swedish web search? I'm sorry, but a Swedish web search and your personal opinions on this matter does not constitute a Wiki article deletion. I do have a question for you though, do you work for a company in Sweden that dislikes Cheiron Records or competes against it now that it is based in the USA? I'm just asking you this politely because you seem incredibly "angry" about Cheiron Records (and these other third party companies you keep harping on), like it is personal to you. I say that kindly and not in any personal attack kind of way either. I'm just curious why you would state what could potentially be construed as slanderous language about various record companies publicly and state your negative personal opinions about them as factual information. Where are your references about these companies lying? Please don't keep mentioning your Swedish web searches either, because there is nothing to back up your claims of these companies lying. Where are your reliable references saying that they are "lying"?

Do you have a reliable reference stating that these other companies you keep mentioning have "shamelessly lied once", or is this perhaps your opinion on the matter which you are blindly stating as a fact because you perhaps do not like that Cheiron Records was relaunched in the USA after originating in Sweden? Just curious to know. Music2015 (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just Google "Atlantic Hill Music" (include the double quotation marks or Google will match any page that contains these three words and variations of them) and click on the 10th page. You will discover that there are only 6-7 pages of results and Google will report only about 60 hits. Then see the link in my previous post to Cheiron Music Group’s website; Atlantic Hill Music is described as a world-renowned company, which is a lie (60 hits means not even 0,5 hits per country in the world). Compare that to for instance "Wikipedia", which returns more than 4*10⁹ results (more than 20 million results per country).

And no, I do not work in Sweden (neither do I live there). My only connection to Cheiron is that I have bought some records that were produced at Cheiron Studios. Nothing personal, it’s just that a connection between the companies does not exist. I reverted your changes because the information cannot be confirmed. Cheiron was closed for good in 2000 and succeeded by Maratone, The Location / Roxy etc. 84.209.76.114 (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question here is about Cheiron Records, and we are getting off topic, but I have heard you talk about this Atlantic Hill Music so much that I Googled both it and its owner Tim Coons. Numerous reliable independent sources (i.e. magazines, newspaper articles, network television news stations, etc.) wrote about him (some of which this year and last year) and his past/present accomplishments as a music producer. Some of them even interviewed him on live television broadcasts I see. However, I have found absolutely nothing stating that his company has "lied shamelessly" or even something about its credential not being legitimate. Who cares if they or others refer to it as "world renowned". I have seen numerous quotes from famous recording artists (Backstreet Boys,JoJo, etc.) about Coons, which I'm sure the company would be sued or put out of business for libel by those artists if those quotes were not true or made up by someone else. To me "world renowned" fits when working with recording artists of that caliber. The company even has a clearly non-photoshopped picture of a Backstreet Boy (Howie Dorough) and that Coons guy working in the company's studio on their website. Your "web hits" count ratio means nothing compared to reliable independent sources (and there are many of them) which a quick Google search provides, at least one done in North America. As a matter of fact, the more I read about this Coons guy, I would even say that the Wiki editor(s) who deleted the "controversial" Coons article (which I initially thought you were the article's creator or a sock puppet of them) did so in haste and irresponsibly in my opinion as a Wiki editor, unless these many independent references easily found with a quick web search were not available at the time (I have no idea or not) they deleted that Wiki article about Coons.

I must also challenge your claims of Cheiron Records being "non-notable" as a record label, even back in its "hey day". Not with numerous articles and mentions from music publications such as Billboard, Rolling Stone, and other notable publications, even if its artist roster didn't include the most famous recording artists in the world at the time. The label itself was clearly "notable", and nothing you have said or provided by way of reliable references yet sways me otherwise, even if "Cheiron Studios" was the more famous arm of the company. Your personal opinions and conjecture are just that, personal (and not reliable as fact). Cheiron Records as a "revived label" would get sued if not a legitimate successor label owning the brand and history, especially with its information on both its and its parent company's (Cheiron Music Group) website, and with the connection to Coons and recording artists he works and/or has worked with (which is verified through reliable independent sources) which you have brought up, that only furthers the legitimacy and notability (on its own and not inherited) of Cheiron Records. Your claims are personal opinions and are not backed up by any references or facts, and your "web search hit count ratio" is not a reliable reference. Until I see reliable references supporting your many claims of "lies and falsities", I say KEEP for the Wiki article about Cheiron Records. Music2015 (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To your points:

Cheiron's web page prominently features Atlantic Hill Music on its web page. The web page for Cheiron Records prominently mentions Tim Coons and Christopher_Pasquin. Attempts to create wikipedia pages regarding these people/groups were among the worst examples seen on Wikipedia regarding promotionalism and sockpuppetry in the field of record labels. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Professional Music Blogger/Archive, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rocket_Records, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christopher_Pasquin, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Coons. Therefore when a new article pops up regarding an entity involving these individuals, it seems right to view the article with some suspicion. Although I don't want to put words in another editor's mouth, I presume the "lied shamelessly" is referring to the behavior of (now blocked) editors who were promoting these people and companies within the creation of these articles and in the previous AfD discussions regarding them. I don't think Cheiron Records (the US version) has garnered enough attention to have a reliable source say they "lied shamelessly", therefore your argument is a red herring.
You keep stating the company is tied to the previous, Swedish Cheiron Studios. You have been asked numerous time to provide evidence. Time and time again you have been unable to do so, instead relying on "numerous articles" "TV interviews" by these supposedly very famous people. To save this article, all you have to do is provide reliable, independent sources providing in-depth coverage of the topic. That's it.
You keep using circular reasoning to attempt to tie this US Cheiron Records to a relatively minor effort by the Swedeish Cheiron Studios. Unless the Swedish Cheiron Studios registered a trademark in the U.S. Trademark office for "Cheiron Records", anyone would be able to create a company by that name. I presume the current Cheiron Records owners are bright enough to have done so, but it doesn't tie them to the Swedish company (which, being defunct long before the creation of this US company, is currently unable to do). Yes, Cheiron Studios was highly notable.
Lots of non-notable people have been photographed with famous people. In fact, I have no doubt that Pasquin or Coons had some capacity in producing material at least peripherally related to famous groups. They may even be on a first name basis with famous artists. That doesn't make them notable, and neither Coons nor Pasquin are named in the credits on any of their hit albums.
You have asked that references be provided that prove Cheiron Records is not notable. That is a fallacy in logic, asking to prove a negative. You might as well ask for sources to show that cats do not live on the ninth planet of the Hryth solar system. It is up to the editors who are arguing the article should be kept that the US Cheiron Records is notable enough, as a separate and distinct subject, that it deserves an encyclopedia article. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with with some of your points and shall I say "interesting" logic so to speak, and I completely disagree with some editors publicly making opinion-based statements stated as facts which can be construed as "slanderous" against accomplished individuals and companies in the music industry who none of us have evidence to support such obviously false slander. However, with that said, I will take the step of re-directing the Cheiron Records article back to the Cheiron Studios article for now, which I doubt anybody on this page will object to at the present moment. An article for Cheiron Records can be added back later as more sources pop up I suppose. I must say though that regarding this Tim Coons person I looked up after all the banter about him by other editors on this page, the AFD for that particular article (not the Pasquin or Rocket Records articles though) back in 2013 was done either out of pure stupidity or incompetence in my honest opinion (not an attack on other editors), because there are more than 20 reliable independent references about Coons and his company found online with a simple web search. I was not around on here editing music related articles back then, but those editors who deleted the Coons article obviously do not (or at least did not back then) understand Wiki guidelines for inclusion as it pertains to individuals such as Coons, even if the Pasquin and Rocket Records articles were no good or promotional advertising as has been stated. I just think too many "emboldened" Wiki editors do the community of music readers at large in particular a great disservice at times with overzealous and lousy editing, maybe caused by their own personal agenda(s) even, but I guess it is what it is. Ciao. Music2015 (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article for Cheiron Records has been re-directed back to the Cheiron Studios article for now by myself, as seems to be the straight majority consensus here on this page, so this particular AFD discussion should now be closed for good unless there are any objections to that at all? Music2015 (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence from WP:RS that this company has encyclopedic notability or has any association with the previous company. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Denniz Pop (with the history preserved under the redirect)~~. The edit here is disputed because no sources have been provided that definitely establish an association between Cheiron Records and the previous company Cheiron Studios.
This source verifies the connection between Denniz Pop and Cheiron Records:
Larkin, Colin (2006). The Encyclopedia of Popular Music: Grenfell, Joyce - Koller, Hans. Oxford University Press. p. 509. Retrieved 2015-06-28.
The concurrent debut album, Earthquake Visions, was released on producer Denniz Pop's Cheiron Records (later through Music For Nations in the UK) and saw them garner further critical support, including nominations for a Swedish Grammy plus Album Of The Year and Best Breakthrough Act ...
I was unable to find substantial coverage of the subject. Preserving the history will allow the redirect to be easily undone if editors in the future find more sources about the subject that could be used to source and expand the article significantly. Cunard (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is this article is about the American record label, and your information is about the Swedish subsidiary of Cherion studios. If any re-direct is done, it should be there, because that article already describes this minor operation of the studio. Their few releases weren't generally successful, and therefore I think it's unlikely that it will attain any notability independent of the studio. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction. Cheiron Records says, "The label's name, brand, and history were revived in 2015 after initially being a part of the original Cheiron Studios music production entity. The label was founded in Sweden in 1992 by the late Denniz Pop, and was partially owned by BMG from 1992 to 1996."
I agree that a redirect to Cheiron Studios would be better. But since this label was revived in 2015, it's possible that Cheiron Records will achieve success independent of Cheiron Studios in their future releases. Preserving the history under the redirect would make it easier to restore the article if that ever happened.
Redirect to Cheiron Studios (with the history preserved under the redirect).
Cunard (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be ok with merging, but I think it is best deleted, precisely because the article history should not be retained. The article, in its current form, has two parts: the part that pertains to Cherion Studios is already in that article, and the current US label is unrelated except as apparently named in tribute. The article has been sanitized, and the history contains all manner of disinformation. I think a re-direct back to Cherion Studios could in fact be created, but only after this is deleted. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cheiron Studios (with the history preserved under the redirect). I agree with Cunard, this is the best option for right now. There is definitely some kind of connection between the "new" and "old" Cheiron music brand entities, though what that connection is specifically is up for debate due to limited or very old references. Preserving the history makes it easier to restore the article as (or if) better references become available and/or the label achieves more notable commercial success, so deleting it completely is unnecessary and does not serve the Wikipedia community of readers at large in the best manner, at least in my honest opinion. Music2015 (talk) 06:11, 30 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 Speedily deleted assuming good faith that 183.90.93.4 is Econline1992 and UserQuadriacapital. Tóraí (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Amit Varma[edit]

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

Announcement of an appointment and one interview are not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:BLPNOTE. Flat Out (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 21 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Diannaa (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Bondeli[edit]

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

Delete: insufficiently notable salonist. Quis separabit? 02:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC) -- Nomination withdrawn by nominator upon reconsideration and in light of SNOW. Quis separabit? 20:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the stub is unreferenced, a Google Book search ([23]) shows a number of potential sources. I don't speak German, but I'd like to hear comments on [24] and [25]. A number of books seem to contain brief biography notes ("Julie von Bondeli (1732–1778)...") but again we need a German speaker to verify that. Still, seems to me like there's enough out there to make her notable. She has a VIAF entry, for what it counts ([26]). This ([27]) en source describes her as "Susanna Julie Bondeli (1732-1778), the most prominent woman of the Bern enlightenment, a descendant of Charlemagne". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are all "descendants of Charlemagne" notable? I may be one myself. Quis separabit? 03:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable writer, but the article needs much work. Her letters were edited in 1930 and again in 2012, on which occasion her life was the subject of a thorough article in the NZZ, Switzerland's leading quality newspaper, and her life was fictionalized in a 2004 novel, Tells Tochter, itself reviewed by leading media including the NZZ, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and the Weltwoche ([28]). There's a reasonably comprehensive biography in the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland, which characterizes her as "an outstanding representative of the Enlightenment's culture of letters", and she was covered in biographical dictionaries even in the 19th century, such as in the 1876 Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, which describes her as "one of the most outstanding [18th ct.] female figures ... with significant influence on the development of literature". Sandstein 17:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope one of you can improve the article by at least half as much as you claim you can. Right now the article is a unsourced turd stub. If you can improve it I will withdraw the nom. I can't because frankly I am out of my depth on this one. Quis separabit? 21:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not cleanup. Somebody will eventually get around to it, much like other subpar articles. Sandstein 21:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Sandstein.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , she was a notable hostess of an intellectual salon. The articles on German and French language Wikipedia demonstrate that the article need to be developed rather than deleted. --Aciram (talk) 21:31, 21 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. Michig (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kuppiya[edit]

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

No indication of any notability. The only reference is a link to Alexa, which only rates website ranking. Per WP:BEFORE, nothing at Google News, nothing at Google books. Seems to be a chat forum. No attempts to conform to WP:ORG notability standards. Premature to create this. If there was a way to merge this somewhere, I'd suggest that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The search evidence above shows that they don't pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no supported indication of notability. Dan arndt (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Thanks Nishadhi (talk) 14:48, 25 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Bo[edit]

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

I don't believe he has enough notability as a news anchor of an Arabic-language channel in China... (which I may add is just a Chinese government-owned PR/propaganda channel serving Middle Eastern/African countries). Everything else on the page: a volunteer in the Asian Games, top-10 finish in one city's division of a national singing contest... doesn't belong on Wikipedia by any stretch of imagination. There are 2 references. The first one is from Baidu Baike, the infamous Chinese version of Wikipedia that requires no sources, reliable or not — and not surprisingly that page cites nothing. The second reference is from CCTV, his employer, dated 2007 — before he started working there, and upon closer examination is just a "competitor profile" of an English-language competition for Chinese students. The first "external link" is a streaming webpage for the CCTV Arabic channel and really hasn't much to do with him. Timmyshin (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe a hoax (article claims something with the 2013 Super Boy (contest) but never found at ZHWP's zh:2013快樂男聲 listing), or just extreme lack of notability. There are way more notable people for that exact Han character name (e.g. 1982-born actor zh:張博 (1982年出生) [29][30][31]) and even more when taking just the sound (e.g. historic figure Li Yan (Wu), who has a previous name 張播/Zhang Bo). For future reference, also note that Nlu started this as a redirect to that historic figure, only refactored to be about this news anchor by Corphine. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 03:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON--Antigng (talk) 06:09, 25 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) 07:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Classical Slav[edit]

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

Not a notable chess book – no significant coverage beyond a couple of book reviews. Virtually any book put out by a mainstream chess publisher receives a similar level of attention. No book awards won either. It's a good book but so is the entire Grandmaster Repertoire series published by Quality Chess – this particular volume doesn't stand out in any way. Cobblet (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge - incorporate any relevant info into Boris Avrukh. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge - I agree. No standout notability over and above a large number of other books, unless it received accolades in the press and/or won 'book of the year' prizes. Regular praiseworthy reviews would be insufficient in my opinion. Brittle heaven (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirect - Delete because it fails WP:NBOOK and its claim to notability is praise in an online store description, not a published review. No merge because there's nothing to merge (the book is already mentioned at the Avrukh article). No redirect because chess openings are often capitalized so the main topic would be the "Classical Slav" (even though that's not technically the name of an opening, as far as I know, it's also common to add "Classical" to older lines that have been updated). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without any merge or redirect. What would you merge it into? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge or redirect. This sort of thing is mentioned in the relevant players own article typically. This article will never be substantial. Jkmaskell (talk) 09:30, 19 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frame Destination[edit]

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

Non-notable company/supplier, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is hard to imagine a circumstance where a particular picture framing company would have encyclopedic notability, and this one certainly does not. Brianhe (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE This doesn't look usable. This has some usable encyclopedic material, but it's not enough by itself.CorporateM (Talk) 21:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 21 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. Michig (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ardmore Residence[edit]

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

Non-notable housing development, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Logical1004 (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE?? Any rationale for this opinion? --Oakshade (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : My mistake. Just went through the article, and the way article was written, didn't seem to be notable enough. Also a little quick google search resulted in some advertisements regarding the Ardmore Residence. Regarding the links that Oakshade provided, 2nd and 3rd link are the same, and I think they may not fall under WP:NWEB. Also the website itself claim that Gizmag does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of or the representations made by the Material on the Gizmag Website or any web site that links from the Gizmag Website or any information received as a result of using the Gizmag Website. Regarding the article Designboom, UNStudio distinguishes ardmore residence as living landscape, the article seems to be written from the perspective of the UNStudio itself (even all images are courtesy of UNStudio), so can fall under some sort of advertisement category. As I can't access Architects' Journal First Look, so on first look of the headline, it looks like they are providing a view of the residence, but notability is still a concern as I have one doubt here, every week or every month they provide a first look of skyscrapers, then can all of them have a wiki page?? The notability issue was cleared after going through Singapore's Ardmore Residence named in list of top 10 skyscrapers in the world and The Best New Tall Buildings On The Planet. So I retract my Delete vote. Logical1004 (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that the 3rd link below was accidentally a repeat of the 2nd and that has been corrected.--Oakshade (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As much as I don't like the way the article was created, it seems to be architecturally significant. Examples: Business Insider Australia, The Best New Tall Buildings On The Planet (#8 of 88 on CTBUH 2014 list); Architects' Journal First Look; Designboom, UNStudio distinguishes ardmore residence as living landscape — Brianhe (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Besides the coverage indicating significant recognition and coverage from Brianhe, I also found more significant coverage like that of The Straits Times in a few seconds. [32][33][34][35] This is the second time I've come across an AfD by this nom that seems to ignore easily found coverage. Joseph2302, do you practice WP:BEFORE before opening AfDs? --Oakshade (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do, I also nominate a lot of AfDs, probably the best part of 100 in the last month, so I'm going to mistakes occasionally. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph2302, 100 AfDs in a month for one editor is an incredible amount. Instead of rushing into AfDs after cursory looks at articles, as WP:AFD stipulates, spend much more time examining if an article qualifies as an AfD candidate. Deletion is a last-resort action. By examining topics more and properly performing WP:BEFORE, mistakes like this will less likely happen.--Oakshade (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of time, so can spend a lot of time weeding out the rubbish, as well as improving the improvable articles. Also, most of the 100 were obvious fails (non-notable companies created by socks/employees, non-notable sportspeople), and I think it's overly-harsh to question by competencies based on 2 bad nominations. I know AfD is a last resort, but for many articles on here, it's the only appropriate resort. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Regarding WP:BEFORE, I agree and I follow it too, but there may be instances that some articles can be missed out that can establish the notability of the article, as if you go through Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, every news can't have an wiki-article. So I think AfD is the process if anyone has missed any important article that can establish the notability, that can be discussed it here. Logical1004 (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article from Australian Design Review that Oakshade provided passes the threshold of significant coverage. Altamel (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 21 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. (non-admin closure) JAaron95 (Talk) 18:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shamoun Hanna Haydo[edit]

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

Even after making every possible allowance for systemic bias, there's apparently just no indication of notability of this person. The only source for the article is this, not WP:RS and now a dead link. The initial version of our article was identical to that page, which is copyrighted 2007; either it was copied from there, in which case it is an outright copyright violation; or that page copied from us, in which case it cannot be a source. In neither case do I see that we can keep this content. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - also want to avoid systemic bias, and all signs point to him meeting GNG. From what I can tell there is no common way to spell this guy's name. Assyrian people speak an Aramaic language which my browser likes to render as all squares. The Syriacs today are mainly in northern Iraq, Iran and Syria. In Turkish, it's "Şemune Hanne Haydo" - here's a Turkish-language academic paper written about him (has an English summary). Since he trolled the Turks I wouldn't expect much in Turkish. This French blog here (Chamoun Hanna Haydo) says he saved many people during the 1915 Assyrian genocide. These videos here and here feature a guy singing songs about him. Someone left the comment saying "Chamoun Hanna Haydo! The great Aramean Warrior!" I'm going to ask WikiProject Assyria for help in locating RS to support my keep. I don't know how active they are but hopefully will get some help. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete According to the text, he was a village head engaged in a conflict. I don't think this much proves his notability. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI he is repeatedly referred to as an Assyrian hero who saved many lives. There is a discussion on him here in Arabic - someone says they saw a program on TV about him and someone else puts a profile on him by a professor. Unfortunately it's a forum and we don't have access to the TV show or if/where the profile was printed. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am in favor of giving —Мандичка time to work with others who can access relevant materials and provide more reliable sources to show that the subject is a notable folk hero among the Assyrian people. It is hard to tell from the current article and other materials how relevant the subject really is or was.--Rpclod (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I agree with Rpclod. I am also in favor of giving some time to —Мандичка to work with others who can access relevant materials and provide more reliable sources, as it takes a lot of effort in creating an article than in deleting it. I am in favor of giving hime some more time. Logical1004 (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - unfortunately the Assyrian project talk page is not that active, and there is no "Assyria-related deletion discussion list" that might have grabbed people's attention. But hopefully someone with resources will be able to contribute. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:39, 24 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. After two weeks the only argument in favour of deletion is from the nominator, with other contributors agreeing that the subject is notable. Michig (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Charles Léonard Yvon Beaulne[edit]

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

WP:BIO of a deceased diplomat, relying entirely on a single source and making no particularly substantive claim of notability as a diplomat. As always, ambassadors are not entitled to claim a notability freebie just because they existed — to earn an article on Wikipedia, they need to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Delete. (Note that if anybody does want to take a crack at sourcing this up to a keepable standard, what you actually need to search for is "Yvon Beaulne" rather than "Joseph Charles Léonard Yvon Beaulne".) Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Canadian ambassador to the UN; passes WP:ANYBIO as he received Order of Canada —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And Order of Malta —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Bearcat - just want to remind you to please follow WP:BEFORE nominating an article for deletion. Your comment that the article relied on a single source and made "no particularly substantive claim of notability", along with the comment that "if anybody does want to take a crack at sourcing this up to a keepable standard, what you actually need to search for is "Yvon Beaulne"" implies you yourself did not take a crack at sourcing it or do a basic search. I find this annoys me. Just because you feel diplomats are not notable doesn't mean they are actually not notable. The French version of this article clearly states he was awarded the Order of Canada, an indication he contributed something along the way, and a basic search shows this to be the case. Please follow WP:BEFORE in the future. Merci. [36], [37] —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have comprehensive access to all of the possible sources that might contribute to getting a diplomat over WP:GNG, but can only work with the resources that I have access to. Just as an example, I have access to no newspaper coverage databases that would contribute anything toward GNGing a diplomat whose career took place in the 1960s and 1970s — the one I have that includes coverage of that time period includes almost no Canadian newspapers, and the one I have that incorporates Canadian newspapers includes only spotty and extremely incomplete coverage anytime prior to 1981. So nothing I said constitutes any sort of evidence that I failed to do any WP:BEFORE — he doesn't turn up much of anything in the resources available to me, but that doesn't mean there's no possibility of other sources existing which I don't have access to but other Wikipedians do. So kindly spare me the lectures about how I need to do something I already did.

And this has nothing to do with what I personally feel about the notability of diplomats, either — AFD has an established consensus that diplomats are not automatically notable just because they exist, or automatically entitled to keep unsourced or primary sourced stubs which make no substantive claim of notability beyond their existence. They're absolutely considered to be notable if they can be properly sourced as passing WP:GNG or a more specific notability criterion, but do not get an automatic "all diplomats are automatically notable" pass. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Order of Canada gets him over the GNG bar. Jbh ^Talk 19:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of notability don't satisfy GNG, no matter how impressive they are, if they're unsourced — passing or failing GNG is a question of the quality of sourcing that is or isn't available about the person, not of any unsourced claim that an article can ever simply assert without supporting it with reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His entry from The Governor General of Canada's website. Order of Canada Yvon Beaulne, C.M. Jbh ^Talk 22:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sourcing = media coverage, not profile blurbs on the websites of directly affiliated organizations. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... No. The official site of the office which makes the award is RS. In this case the Governor General General of Canada, acting on behalf of Queen Elizabeth II is who makes the appointment. The site I linked is the site the newspapers would use to verify it. In this case being a member of The Order of Canada is, as I understand it, notable in and of itself. We do not need sources commenting on the award. The fact of the award is all that needs verification and the Governor General's web site, to be specific the section of the site designed to look up those who have received awards is where that fact is confirmed. If you disagree I invite you to bring it up as WP:RSN where I will abide by the consensus there. Jbh ^Talk 00:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Below are a couple of refs I found and clipped on newspapers.com. I will post them on the talk page of the article as well. ^[1]^[2]

References

^ "Yvon Beaulne, Canada's New UN Envoy - A Man of Many Parts". The Ottawa Journal. p. 15. Retrieved July 21, 2014 – via Newspapers.com.
^ "Yvon Beaulne new job it's just like going home". The Ottawa Journal. p. 7. Retrieved July 21, 2014 – via Newspapers.com.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of notability don't satisfy GNG, no matter how impressive they are, if they're unsourced — passing or failing GNG is a question of the quality of sourcing that is or isn't available about the person, not of any unsourced claim that an article can ever simply assert without supporting it with reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 22 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.

[1] "Yvon Beaulne, Canada's New UN Envoy - A Man of Many Parts". The Ottawa Journal. p. 15. Retrieved July 21, 2014 – via Newspapers.com.

[2] "Yvon Beaulne new job it's just like going home". The Ottawa Journal. p. 7. Retrieved July 21, 2014 – via Newspapers.com.

[1]

[2]