Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 June	1 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Costello[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I can't find any WP:RS to establish notability. Safehaven86 (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article only has primary sources and a quick Google search failed to turn up more. Artw (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of RS, and from the content does not appear to be someone who will pass wp:notability. LaMona (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But needs expansion and rewrite, with more sourcing. Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ship Simulator. This should've been BOLDLY done by the nom but hey ho all done now. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ship Simulator Professional[edit]

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

Unsourced low-quality content of questionable notability and usefulness, written like a product description and feature list. No lead section. MopSeeker (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Ship Simulator or developer VSTEP. Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references, but the series of games is notable and the developer is borderline.Dialectric (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ship Simulator, which houses the series. Please consider performing easy redirects yourself before coming to AfD. @MopSeeker, if you'll withdraw, I'll redirect it myself. – czar 21:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No referenced content so nothing to merge. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3D comfort and acceptance[edit]

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

This is an unreferenced essay full of WP:OR, any valuable content it may have is already contained in 3D film. Tried to speedy as duplicating the 3D film, but admin. felt that did not apply. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article, although well-intended, is not encyclopedic in form. The history of 3D's acceptance and any real or imagined comfort or health issues should be covered in 3D film, as these are really the most important issues with the topic (besides how it's done.)Steve Dufour (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont agree with you. this page "3D Comfort and acceptance" is also a research project where the various scientific will contribute, just give them some time before deleting so fast. I linked this article to 3D film page, but i am not sure the reader of that page is interesting by the details of the research on human factors, only some of them will come to see this page. please note that this research project is a national funded project and the results are given for free to this encyclopedia, you might consider the very important contribution this represents. on 3D film, i see some "3d bashing" speaking about not proven injured people due to 3D, i dont think the serious research made in this project should be copied in that page except if you clean the non medical stuff that is reported in 3D film. thank you to let this page valid, moreso we forwarded it to renowned scientists that are preparing contribution, i dont think this would be a good idea to delete a page that busy people are writing for the sake of sharing the discoveries in your encyclopedia. thanks for your understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philippe17121 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful and intelligable content into [[3D film. If there isn't any...and the article is so badly written that I can't tell... delete. I see no reason why this topic meris more than a para in "3D film".TheLongTone (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does not seem like a salvageable article, especially due to the large amount of original research. The topic itself does not seem encyclopedic in nature. Agtx (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there is anything useful, put it in 3D film. Darx9url (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong forum. Will open an RfD. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murine_polyomavirus[edit]

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

This page is for a virus species, which is a member of the family it is redirected to. However, it is not the only species in that family, and so is not synonymous with it. It is common practice that whenever a genus contains only one species, or a family contains only one genus, that one page be redirected to the other, but that is not the case here. Additionally, there are several species in the same family that do not have pages and are not redirects to the family. Bervin61 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a redirect, not an article. The correct forum for this is WP:Redirects for discussion. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KPovModeler[edit]

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

Project is dead. The article didn't have secondary sources never --Be nt all (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion page was created without afd2 template and never transluded to a daily log. Fixed now--no further comment on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 18:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up forum posts, but no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete (with no apparently good target for moving elsewhere) as my searches found nothing particularly significant regarding coverage with the best being this. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus here on whether the article meets the notability guidelines or not, although with arguments leading more towards keeping now than delete. Davewild (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erkki Rapo[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet GNG, can't find significant coverage for the subject of this unsourced ~~BLP~~. J04n(talk page) 14:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

actually appears that he no longer alive, so not a BLP J04n(talk page) 14:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Autograph collector? I see a small article in the Finnish Wikipedia(translation) but it is skimpy. Not a single reference, and only one external link to a newspaper's overall website. The three external links in the Finnish Wikipedia are unhelpful. I don't understand how this article survived here for 10 years. If anyone can come up with sources for this person then fine, keep it, but I am not finding any. Coretheapple (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sounds neat. It sounds like a cool little "did you know," and perhaps the Finnish Wikipedia has a TV special or something that did a human interest segment, but there are no references, and no claims to notability. I can certainly imagine that an "Inside Entertainment Hollywood People" in America or in syndication in Australia or the UK did a bit, but that probably wouldn't qualify, either. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At first glance this article seems hopeless but using google.fi and searching for "Uncle Eki" in Finnish (Eki-setä) yields this for example, published by Finland's largest subscription newspaper. My language skills are not strong enough to expand the search further, but this might be a case of a lack of English sources and the fi.wp article is really not helping. Looking solely at Google it seems this person was quite the personality back in the day. I know "comment" comments in AFDs are really annoying for closing admins, so I'm going to go with weak keep on this one. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know some people will have a say about this, but because it is also on the Finnish Wikipedia, which I definitely did not write, and also because I was the originator and like articles I originated to stay...weak keep. AntonioTio Loco Martin (Dale!) 08:41, June 14, 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 18:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 18:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is notability in any country sufficient for inclusion in English Wikipedia? If so, is there any way to alert any Finnish people on English Wikipedia to this discussion (if not already done)? 31.51.134.46 (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, is an article about an autograph collector who was apparently known within that group of individuals but not much anywhere else. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Uusitorppa, Harri (2004-02-28). "Erkki Rapo: Keräilijä s. 2.7.1946 k. 28.2.2004". Helsingin Sanomat (in Finnish). Archived from the original on 2015-07-10. Retrieved 2015-07-10.
2. Rantanen, Miska (2004-06-20). "Last scribblings: an autograph hunter's collection goes under the hammer: For Erkki Rapo (1946-2004), gathering autographs was a life's work, and it made him a celebrity of sorts in his own right". Helsingin Sanomat. Archived from the original on 2005-07-28. Retrieved 2005-07-28.
3. Lindfors, Jukka (2008-05-20). "Eki-setä kohtasi Dylanin" (in Finnish). Yle. Archived from the original on 2015-07-10. Retrieved 2015-07-10.
  Link to Google Translate. The article calls him a "well-known autograph collector" who during his lifetime collected over 10,000 signatures and that in 1986, he reached the Guinness Book of World Records.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Erkki Rapo to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That the subject received two obituaries (one in English written by Miska Rantanen and the second in Finnish by Harri Uusitorppa) from the Helsingin Sanomat, "the largest subscription newspaper in Finland and the Nordic countries" (with a circulation of 365,994 in 2011), strongly indicates he's notable. That he then received significant coverage four years after his death in Yle, "Finland's national public-broadcasting company", demonstrates that he clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the links shared by Cunard. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of matches between Equatorial Guinea and Ivory Coast[edit]

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

As noted, these two national football teams have only ever played two matches against each other. There is no significant/notable history/rivalry here at all. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. – Pee Jay 19:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. Not notable. Qed237 (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – agreed. Clearly a non-notable rivalry. Aspirex (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with only two meetings there is no way this article could satisfy WP:NRIVALRY. Fenix down (talk) 07:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless listing of only 2 games. LibStar (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hopelessly non-notable.--58.106.224.138 (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by RHaworth. –Davey2010^Talk 00:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott duffy[edit]

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

None of the businesses he launched have an article nor appear notable. I can't find anything which makes him notable either. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 19:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Charter does have a Wiki page and was acquired by Richard Branson. Duffy is a TV / Media personality, best-selling author and business authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMSS4S (talk • contribs) 13:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 23:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Oliver[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet notability guidelines for notability per WP:ENT Scr★pIron^IV 18:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver has appeared in Star Wars and many successful plays in Britain and Europe, and also has cult following as a member of The Factory Theatre Company. I am in the process of updating his page, so I would ask that it is not deleted. Thanks Typing: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.184.59 (talk)

The article is going to need more and better citations if it is to be retained- imdb will not suffice. Have a look at WP:N. Artw (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will be working on the citations over the next few days. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.184.59 (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would start with them, otherwise it is all for nothing. Artw (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous/unregistered editor is not confining his or herself to providing citations to the page in question but is adding matter about the subject of the article being considered for deletion to any and all articles with even a passing level of connection. The anonymous editor in question seems to be unusually fixated on this one subject. Urselius (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, unfortunatly I may have encouraged this, I should have added that a quantity over quality approach to cites is pretty unlikely to sway the AfD process. Artw (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - though the article now has a surfiet of references all of them appear quite trivial or lacking in independence. If there are some that provide in depth coverage suitable for establishing WP:N it might be worth cutting back to just those to more clearly demonstrate how notability is met. Artw (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability for actors is more difficult to assess than for engineers, scientists etc., because their work is very public in its fundamental nature. The subject of the article seems to have had a 'good-average' career, with plenty of work, but I don't think this makes him notable. There are plenty of talented jobbing actors out there, but Wikipedia should not be a public cv platform for them. Urselius (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am currently working on finding better references for this article; I put in the current 'surfeit' because I was told the page needed more. I appreciate the subject is not necessarily famous, but is well-known in the theatre industry and is notable for the number of leading and supporting roles they have had in important screen and, especially, stage productions, thus meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines for actors. I appreciate it is much harder to judge with stage than screen actors as they perform to an inherently smaller audience, but that does not mean the better-known amongst them are less 'notable'; for example, very few actors play multiple seasons at England's most famous theatre. Also, I would repeat that The Factory Theatre Company and its major members are notable and enjoy a cult following, and so the subject of the page is included in this.

To break it down by Wikipedia's own notablility guidelines: 1. The subject "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances", including the films 'Deathwatch' and 'Eskimo Day', the television show 'Hannay', and a great number of notable stage productions, some of which are listed in the article. Such stage productions do not recieve their own Wikipedia articles, presumably as each play has too many different productions to list in detail, but this does not make them, or their casts, less notable than films or television series.

2. The subject "has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following", because of their leading membership of the aforementioned Factory Theatre Company, which has a significant cult following, especially in London, because of its innovative methods and inclusive techniques in dealing with their audiences.

3. The subject "has made prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment", namely theatre. The "prolific" nature of the subject's contribution to the theatre is very clearly proven in the article, as well as its links, as they have appeared in dozens of stage productions in Britain and abroad. The "innovative contributions" come largely thanks to the subject's involvement with The Factory Theatre Company. This is linked to the subject's cult following as it is The Factory Theatre Company's particularly innovative techniques that won them their large fan base. Proof of the innovative nature of the subject's work with The Factory Theatre Company is already referenced in the article (not by me), and further eferences that I will be putting up shortly from well-known, independent sources, should put this beyond doubt.

I apologise if the current references are not of a high enough quality; as I said, I will be improving them shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.184.59 (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if there is an opposite to WP:HEY, this is it. Some half-bad sources were replaced by even worse ones, such as IMDB. Bearian (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I clicked on all five general reference news sources cited, all are either a photo caption, list of roles and actors, or one sentence in a review. Non-notable. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:56, 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 Sweden in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013. —Darkwind (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eliias[edit]

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

Not notable musician that fails WP:MUSIC. Did not win the contest nor had a charting single. No page to be found on the Swedish wiki. Karst (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:. Per WP:BIO1E, the artist competed in the finals a major Eurovision-related event. Also WP:MUSIC states "a musician may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria". It meets criterion 9: "has won or placed in a major music competition". His song "Det är dit vi ska" placed 9th in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2003. And having no page on Swedish wiki doesn't even warrant AfD rationale. The fact that English wiki is on-the-ball much quicker than our Swedish wiki-cousins, holds no merit. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 20:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:MUSIC critierion #9 ("Has won or placed in a major music competition") is using Merriam-Webster's definition of "place": "second place at the finish". Otherwise wouldn't every contestant satisfy the criterion? If the drafters intended to include everyone, surely they would have simply written "Has competed in a major music competition". Would you clarify and elaborate on how you feel WP:BIO1E fits into the discussion? Worldbruce (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If criterion #9 was being specific to Merriam-Webster's definition of "place", then it would note that in its criterion annotation. As it does not, then a "place" can be anywhere between first and last. As for BIO1E, this has been raised over the years at WikiProject Eurovision, first in June 2012 and again in September 2012. The singer took part in a national selection event in order to represent his country at Junior Eurovision, in which he came 1st, for which he then went on to participate and placed 9th. Therefore he took part in more than one event. WP:BLP1E goes on to note that three conditions need to be met in order to avoid the creation of a BLP article. All three are not met, as their are reliable sources to cover the person in more than one event. He may be low-profile across some parts of Europe, but he has released other songs which definitely does not make him low-profile - although that could be questionable to some. The third point notes if the event is not significant or the individual's role was not substantial or well documented. The can be dismissed easily. The event was significant and broadcast to millions across the globe (as Eurovision Contest's have been nicknamed the "Olympics of the Music World"), and there are sources documenting the person. Therefore an article is warranted in accordance to BLP1E. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note that despite the fact the article was created by RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk · contribs), who has recently been indef blocked for violating her WP:NEWBLPBAN, this article was created before such ban was imposed. And as much as the user was starting to become an uncontrollable pain in the ass, I do feel it is unfair to be targeting her works prior to such ban having been imposed on her. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I was not aware of the issues around RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk · contribs) neither did it have anything to do with the AfD. Karst (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you did, @Karst:. I was merely pointing out the factor, just in case someone did a history search and stumbled on the fact, Rebecca is indef blocked. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 18:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify something actually, as I am starting to be torn between "keep" and "merge". Its something that would impact a large portion of similar articles regarding participants for Junior Eurovision contests. I had raised the matter that these type of bios may be overzealous in creation quite some time ago via Project Eurovision talk pages. And to be frank, I was told to "back off" as these complied with BIO1E and BLP1E. But even to this day, I'm still not 100% convinced, and feel such information on the artist(s) would be more beneficial on articles such as (in this case) Sweden in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2003. There are not that many annual pages for countries that have taken part, and bio information may be more suitable to articles like that, so that they can be further developed to incorporate about how the singer was chosen, background on the singer (which in some cases are hard to find), and how they performed at the contest etc. Would that methodology be a better solution? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 18:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the contest page by itself has merit then by all means merge and request a closure of the AfD. Karst (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Karst: I'm not just on about looking into merging Ellias into a more meriting JESC article; but also the other 69 bio articles that may benefit from a similar process; and also noting at WP:ESC that it would be preferable in future cases to redirect Junior Eurovision bios into the corresponding country article instead. But like I said, we would need someone to put pressure on WikiProject Eurovision to make sure they know not to be so eager in creating article for junior stars. They won't just take my sole word for it. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 19:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After some considerable though, I have struck out my original vote! and changing it to speedy merge with Sweden in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013. I would also like to suggest that the same merging procedure be carried out for all of the other Junior Eurovision bios who did not win the contest, to be merged into their respective "[Country]" in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest "[20xx]" articles, and that a notice be issued at WT:ESC to remind project members not to create a JESC bio until the winner is known and that all policies are taken into account. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep participating in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest should be enough. J 1982 (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments outlined above indicate that a merge would be preferable. Karst (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Swedens representative at JESC 2011. He has also continued to release a new music single. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page speaks of new music with no references to any releases. If you know of any, please add them. Karst (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the artist seems to be notable really only for participating in the Junior Eurovision contest; despite claims to the contrary, there do not appear to be new releases, and any significant content can be easily merged into Sweden in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the country page as described above, as the contest participation at this point is the only claim to notability. I'd advocate the same for the other bio pages in cases in which the artist has not achieved independent notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is too early due to WP:CRYSTAL concerns. Davewild (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of animated television series of 2017[edit]

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

Unsourced article for future series - fails WP:GNG. See WP:CRYSTALBALL Flat Out (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it should be kept because animation is such a lengthy process so surely these are already in production. KiwikiKiWi (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would first refer to WP:NFF which states that

"In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced"
"films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (...) should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable (...). " I do think this ought to apply to animation movies, as well.

The guideline is about standalone articles though. I think 1 applies because it is grounded on WP:CRYSTALBALL: many films get cancelled at a relatively late stage of the production, in which case we want neither a standalone article nor a mention in another article. I believe 2 ought to apply (which condemns the whole thing) as well but I agree that is more borderline. Tigraan (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Futarama said it best in these situations: "Painstakingly drawn before a live studio audience", and while it is true that these projects typically can't be thrown togather and shoved out in a few months 2017 does seem a little...far for an article on the subject matter. Admittedly at the moment 2017 is close enough to justify some discussion of the matter, but I can't help but feel this is too much in the realm of WP:CRYSTAL at the moment to fully support. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:54, 30 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true that animation is a long enough process that some of these are already in the production pipeline today, the problem is that for any number of potential reasons some of them might still fail to ever actually debut anywhere (e.g. turning out to be bad enough that no television network actually wants to pick them up, studio goes bankrupt, and on and so forth), or may end up getting delayed until 2018, 2019 or 2020. When it comes to television series, we do not start an article as soon as we can lean on one source announcing that the show has entered the production process — a television series does not become an appropriate article topic on Wikipedia until it has been officially upfronted by a television network as something that is definitely going to air rather than just being planned to maybe air. And if the series themselves aren't appropriate article topics yet, then we don't need a list of them yet either. Delete as WP:CRYSTAL, without prejudice against recreation in 2017 when we actually start seeing real upfront announcements. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL; let's wait until networks actually announce shows before we create a 'year in' article about them, and all of the shows mentioned have either no sources to their airing or like the fate of Murder Police, might never see a screen. Nate • (chatter) 03:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Edenborough[edit]

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

Non-notable singer who apparently only has an article for being married to the Oscar-nominated actor Gary Oldman. WP:GNG demands significant coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail" and is "more than a trivial mention"; mentions of Edenborough are simply as Oldman's wife. Searching her name on Google while excluding Oldman's yields nothing. Doop44 (talk) 16:40, 30 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything else of note either, there is an album but I can't unearth the title? Karst (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per obvious failure to pass GNG. She apparently did put out one record but no reputable sources have touched it, nor it is available from any noted CD outlet. Karyn Devlin (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, fails WP:ENTERTAINER & WP:GNG. A cover of a song by Wiz Khalifa does not establish notability. –323MU (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)|[reply]
Delete. Shouldn't have been created, simply not notable. 82.132.238.244 (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bosman Family Vineyards[edit]

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

Unsourced advertorial. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for highlighting issues with this article. As the person who uploaded it, I'd like to make sure the article conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines. It seems the main issue is that the article does not refer to any sources - am I correct? If this is the case, I will add relevant sources tomorrow.

Note also that a previous version of this article was removed: I edited it extensively and reuploaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnemanIan (talk • contribs) 15:29, 30 June 2015‎

Keep The fact it was established in 1699 should be enough to make it notable. Any promotional wording can be removed Gbawden (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources that need to be added to the article:
Harpers
Debos wines owned by Bosman; includes information on benefits of fair trade for those owning and working the farms
Capetown Magazine
"Nation's Wine Wins Fairtrade Award." Africa News Service 19 Sept. 2012.
"ON THE GRAPEVINE WITH MICHAEL TARR." Daily News [South Africa] 13 Mar. 2015: 10. Infotrac Newsstand. Web. 1 July 2015.

I'll copy them to the talk page so as not to lose them. LaMona (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MAM USA Corporation[edit]

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

I was going to PROD this but then I thought there may be a slim chance good sources aren't in English. Multiple searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found no coverage even in the slightest to suggest this is notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 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 01:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too promotional, in my opinion. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article was never tagged as sourceless (which it should've been). I have tagged the page with {{unreferenced}}, but I do see how this may not be notable. Also, it has been tagged as a possible advertisment since 2010. Wiki you now, Wiki you later! (talk) 19:23, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Equinox Fitness[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this is notable as it has received a lot of coverage as shown here, here, here, here and here but nothing actually significant (no notable and in-depth coverage). This has probably received a lot of attention because it's New York although it seems they have been expanding locations. It seems it started expanding to operate hotels now but I'm not seeing anything specifically notable about this so it'd probably be better to move to The Related Companies, the parent company. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - hugely, hugely famous company. I don't know why you couldn't find anything. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. A ton of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that I don't think all of those links could be considered significant, notable and in-depth coverage as compared to Gold's Gym or any other company. Some of that coverage is a little promotional/fluff and such. SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to be a deletionist, but this one isn't even close. There's literally hundreds of reliable sources there, and hundreds more reliable sources about most of its subsidiaries. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 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 01:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikimandia and these news sources [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] as well as these book/mag sources [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] - The sources aren't perfect but notability is there - IMHO the article needs improving not deleting. –Davey2010^Talk 19:58, 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. Davewild (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chang H. Ahn[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this man is notable or if the company is either (if it is, an article can be started and this moved there) but my searches for Chang Ahn were not exactly fruitful here, here, here, here and here. My searches found several results for Rexahn themselves but, again, I'm not sure if they could be notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 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 01:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Care to comment? SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence of passing WP:GNG can be turned up. As it is, the article provides none. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article's only source is the subject's company's website, no other sources can be found, except directories and social media Kraxler (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AutoVirt[edit]

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

What appears to be a non-notable software that didn't make much of an impact in its few years of existence. My searches found some results here, here, here and here. The article is sourced so I'm not sure if this can make it passable and moving elsewhere is not possible as there's no good target. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 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 01:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Originally a WP:SPA article created during the company's active life. All I am seeing is routine announcements (funding, partnership, demise) which falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boosted K-Means Clustering[edit]

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

Non-notable research paper. I dream of horses (T) @ 08:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per nom, this is a summary of a research paper; if the theory is found notable, some cleanup is required. Now, with 48 cites in a journal with an impact factor of 1, I do not know how to evaluate notability in such a specific field. 48 cites could be a lot, or under the average. Tigraan (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 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 01:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think 48 cites of a research paper that is 11 years old is that impressive or indicates particular notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:06, 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. Davewild (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don Beckerleg[edit]

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

Apparently not notable by our standards. Two in-house awards from his employer, one minor, one perhaps less so, are not enough to justify his inclusion here. One hit on Scholar. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 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 01:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article doesn't indicate any claim for notability, no independent coverage, just another recently deceased engineer, Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Kraxler (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be an article created by a family member, clearly a good guy who worked hard but nothing that makes him stand out from the crowd and makes him notable enough for an article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptive Concentration[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Article is a summary of a single arXiv preprint that, according to GScholar, has been cited exactly once, in another arXiv preprint. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 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 01:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty much per nom - essay/summary of original work that has not been found notable at least yet.

This being said, my web search led me to think "adaptative random forests" is a real subject, with papers being published and dating back to 2006 (alas, all papers were paywalled, so it might be a completely different thing). My !vote comes without prejudice against the (re)creation of an article about that. Tigraan (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:58, 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. postdlf (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angola at major beauty pageants[edit]

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

Content fork from Miss Angola (that has better sources). Based on related sources. The Banner talk 09:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 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 01:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:58, 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 keep. No one espoused outright deletion after sourcing was found. Instead, the question became what kind of article can be written. These are normal editing discussions, and can continue on the talk page. If consensus arises to merge that can be accomplished outside of AFD. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parkroyal[edit]

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

This has been tagged for notability for over 7 years, unresolved. I couldn't verify that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It is an international business and the hotels look very nice, it is listed on the usual Tripadvisor, laterooms etc., but I couldn't verify notability. It was speey deleted at AfD in 2007, but this was for copyvio/advert, which may have been solved; I also cannot see for sure if it was the same company. Boleyn (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pan Pacific Hotels and Resorts which also needs considerable work but could meet WP:GNG. Flat Out (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH with ease. Simply selecting the News link atop provides plenty of sig cov in rs: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7]. See also, section D of WP:BEFORE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Review: High-tech Parkroyal Darling Harbour". NewsComAu.
^ "Hotel of the Week - Parkroyal Darling Harbour, Sydney". The Australian.
^ Pooja Thakur Mahrotri (15 January 2013). "Raffles Place Room Shortage Eases With Parkroyal: Southeast Asia". Bloomberg.com.
^ "Parkroyal on Pickering, Singapore - a slice of jungle paradise in the city". South China Morning Post. 14 March 2015.
^ "Parkroyal Parramatta's $25 million extension". Spice magazine.
^ "A breath of fresh flair". The Australian.
^ "Pan Pacific to introduce Parkroyal brand in RI". thejakartapost.com.

Also, http://blogs.wsj.com/scene/2013/06/07/singapores-new-urban-oasis/, which discusses Parkroyal on Pickering's design. Cunard (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs)'s sources are from reputable publications in Australia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, and the United States. The subject is clearly notable.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Parkroyal to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pan Pacific Hotels and Resorts. Yes, Parkroyal technically meets GNG and CORPDEPTH, but is it really a stand-alone article topic? Seems like a WP:PERMASTUB to me, as there is "little important to say about the subject." What could an article for a minor hotel brand include if it was developed into the best article it could be? As for Northamerica1000's sources above. Numbers 1, 2, 4 and 6 are hotel reviews. Are hotel reviews really "significant"? #3 has some news reporting, but the article is focused on the general market conditions for hotels in Singapore and the parent company, Pan Pacific, more than the Parkroyal. #7 is a disguised press release and I have doubts that #5 is a reliable source [23]: "SpiceNews is a free bi-weekly newsletter for the events industry that curates everything new, inspiring and relevant in hotel and venue openings and refurbishments, special events, event suppliers and services, destinations, airlines, as well as the meetings, incentives, conference and exhibition sectors." "Curates" and "everything" are contradictory, and it looks like "everything" wins out. -- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at North America's list of sources, and for the most part, agree with Mnnlaxer that a bunch of travel reviews doesn't meet the bar of WP:CORPDEPTH. Redirect or selective merge as suggested. We certainly don't need the table of how many rooms each property has. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mnnlaxer says the topic does meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Cunard (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said "technically", which means I don't think the subject is notable even though it passes some criteria. -- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 02:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Pan Pacific Hotels and Resorts; while the article may technically meet WP:CORPDEPTH, most of the coverage is simply related to hotel reviews, the article does not appear that it can be expanded beyond an incomplete stub, and any relevant information can be added to the Pan Pacific Hotels article. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with a merge of Parkroyal to Pan Pacific Hotels and Resorts. I also disagree that Parkroyal has no potential at growing beyond a permastub. From http://www.parkroyalhotels.com/en/about.html: "The PARKROYAL portfolio comprises 17 hotels, resorts and serviced suites in gateway cities across Asia and Australia, including those under development." The article can be expanded by discussing the history, architecture, and reception of Parkroyal's 17 hotels. The sources Northamerica1000 has pointed out are a good starting point for that. Cunard (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote doesn't prove anything, it is from the company. The article can only discuss those things if there are independent, reliable sources for them. those sources are a good starting point for marketing materials for the Parkroyal. -- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 02:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quote verifies the uncontroversial fact that Parkroyal has 17 hotels. Those 17 hotels can be discussed in the article using as a basis the independent reliable sources that Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) has listed above. News.com.au, The Australian, Bloomberg Businessweek, South China Morning Post, The Jakarta Post, and The Wall Street Journal are all independent reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Tarrant[edit]

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

I couldn't verify that he meets WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Teacher who has exhibited, but this seems to just be a coi advert. Tagged for notability for over 7 years, unresolved; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wonder if he meets WP:ARTIST. Mhhossein (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note Not to be confused with New Zealander architect Guy Tarrant who was an artist in his youth.[24] Colapeninsula (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is ripe for wiki-lawyering, but if you accept that his show Confiscation Cabinets at the Victoria and Albert Museum's Museum of Childhood, London was an art show (i.e. that Tarrant was acting in his capacity as an artist when he created it), then he meets WP:ARTIST thanks to coverage of his work in legitimate publications.[25][26][27][28][29][30] If you don't accept that it's art (even in these days when curation is art[31]), then he may meet WP:GNG with all that coverage, but most is about the exhibition not him. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 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 01:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete So far this is a wp:blp1e and it is too early to know if there will be a 2nd Event. The exhibit looks to have been clever, and may on its own be notable, but the person himself is not (yet). LaMona (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources in the article are mostly about the exhibition, not about Tarrant. Web searches turn up social media, and mentions of his exhibitions. Well, he assembled/collected the items, but that doesn't quite make him an artist. Kraxler (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ulf Strohmayer[edit]

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

There are an OK number of GScholar hits, but it doesn't quite add up to WP:PROF or WP:GNG for me. Has been tagged for notability for over 7 years; hopefully we can get it resolved one way or another now. Boleyn (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His top-cited work, "Space and Social Theory" (about which I also found a couple of book reviews [32] [33]) is an edited volume, a type of publication we generally give less credit for (or require stronger evidence of notability, to put it more positively). His remaining citation counts on Google scholar, 44, 22, 17, 17, etc, are not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. And what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I remember stumbling upon a small entry on him in some encyclopedia-like book some years ago. However, I can't find the title at the moment, and I was generally puzzled by its choice of entries (~~no Torsten Hägerstrand, for example~~), so I wouldn't consider it a good reference anyways. I know where I could find the physical copy (Frankfurt University Library), but it's probably not worth the effort. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Academic who lacks substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So I finally went to my alma mater's library and found the book: Encyclopaedic biography of world great geographists, by Chandra Dip Singh. This revision of the article is a direct copy of Strohmayer's entry there, and considering it was edited by user "Strohmayer" about one year before the book was published, I'd say both entries are written by Ulf Strohmayer himself. Btw, I was wrong about Hägerstrand (there is an entry on him in that encyclopedia), but there're still some "geographists" (sic) missing from the book who I'd consider much more important than Strohmayer. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Or maybe I should assume the obvious: That this book actually contains copies of WP articles. I'm going to ask someone in the German WP to check the book in the Frankfurt university library. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Hassan El-Feky[edit]

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

Non-notable person. No sources can be found to assert notability for this artist. Being the son of a notable artist is not relevant. The proposed deletion was removed (without edit summary comment) by an IP editor, so taking to AFD instead. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 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 01:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no RSes provided to substantiate claims. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this requires sourcing. Those sources reasonably might be in Arabic and/or offline. Sources may focus primarily on other topics, yet cover this subject in adequate depth. So, for example, sources covering his relationship with his father would be both relevant and useful, even if they principally focused on the father. But in the absence of any sourcing, this is irrelevant cannot be kept. Le petit fromage (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it - the article was updated and offline references added. I suggest keeping it. Any further tips/advice are welcome. Karim M. Ayyad (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC) — K.ayyad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "offline reference" (singular: one magazine article, cited twice) that was added is

El-Baz, Z (2001). "Surrealistic and creative: Mohamed Hassan, the Pharaoh of the mountain". Nisf Al Dunia. 587: 123.

Nisf al-dunya is an Egyptian women's magazine. A search of their website (here) for El-Feky's name (in Arabic) shows no results. I don't speak Arabic, so I may not be navigating the magazine's website correctly, and it is possible that the magazine does not have archives as far back as 2001, so assuming good faith that this article does exist, it is still only a single article, and in a popular magazine, not in an arts-centric publication, so it still does little to bolster El-Feky's notability as an artist.

Delete - web searches in Latin script turn up nothing, we can't speculate whether there might be something in Arabic script, either the creator of the article adds some sources in Arabic, or somebody else who can read it does it. So far there's nothing, one off-line source of unknown depth. Kraxler (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Am willing to userfy if requested but no evidence has been produced here to refute the delete opinions that the notability guidelines have not been met. Davewild (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Venture Mfg. Co.[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The BizJournals.com ref is the only one that comes up. I could find no other coverage. Jbh ^Talk 13:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have edited the Venture Mfg. Co. Wikipedia page as per your suggestions and Wikipedia guidelines. To the most extent, we are following the suggested guidelines. We hope that no negative action will be taken by Wikipedia. We are in the process of sourcing stronger references for the page. As we collect more reference links, we will add them to the page.Paul Hollis (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Hollis: From the wording of your statement it seems you might be associated with or employed by the subject of the article. If this is the case please read the Wikipedia policy of conflict of interest. Undeclared paid editing ie by an employee, is prohibited by the WP:Terms of Use. Please see Meta:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure. Thank you for your understanding. Jbh ^Talk 16:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft if needed - Unfortunately, this company has not received good solid coverage and my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing good aside from business listings at Books. SwisterTwister talk 17:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator of the article Paul Hollis is the same as the President of the company. See 'declaration' here. Jbh ^Talk 15:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:57, 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muttcrew[edit]

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

DePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Fails to meet notability criteria at WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable act. Flat Out (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as my searches including the most simple searches found nothing good regarding third-party coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Due to lack of participation with no prejudice to a speedy renomination. Davewild (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Narding Anzures[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable entertainer. Quis separabit? 15:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - My searches actually found more about him such as News (where it says his name was Bernardo), Books (where a 1990 book says "one of pre-war movies* top child stars", Newspapers Archive, (one link about the incarceration) and Highbeam (one link about Lilian Valdez). It's possible some sources are archived, non-English (though the amount of coverage I found was surprisingly in English) and offline. Essentially, he may not be notable and probably received the best coverage for his child acting years (10 years length, 1937-47) until also receiving coverage for killing Lilian Valdez. SwisterTwister talk 19:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:55, 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) 18:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dhauli Nag Temple[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Guy Macon (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 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 01:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Whereas the temple is possibly historic and notable, I was not able to find any reliable English sources describing it in any detail.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:55, 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. Whether or not it is a hoax, it clearly fails WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kalika Temple[edit]

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

I cannot verify the existence of this temple. I've found many temples with similar names throughout India (including at least 2 Maha Kali Mandirs), none of which are in Reasi. Google Earth and Maps reveal nothing; I looked up Reasi bus stand and there's no evidence of a temple nearby. The only information I can find is Wikipedia mirrors, and I also cannot find any images of this temple other than the one on this article. The closest I've found is a Bawe Wali Mata; some sources include information from this article (it seems to also be known as Kali Mata Mandir (note the word order and spelling), hence the possible confusion), which does seem to be real, but I don't think it's the temple this article is referring to, as it's not in Reasi (the article originally said it was in Udhampur, and I can't find any evidence of one there either). Therefore, I think this may be a hoax. If it is, it would be one of the longest-standing ones, having been here for more than 8 years. Adam9007 (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Even if it does exist, its notability cannot be demonstrated. Paul B (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Delete as a hoax. As mentioned above, none of Google (Search, Maps, etc) can confirm that this even exists. I am not tagging it with {{db-hoax}} because it is not blatant to me. Just because there's nothing on the Internet doesn't mean that it is a hoax. For example, some private companies, organizations, and other private places/areas don't have content on the Internet. I think that more research needs to be put into this first, but I too would question the truthfulness. {{hoax}} is staying put for now, but no speedy delete yet. Wiki you now, Wiki you later! (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Most prominent" temple, but no internet footprint? Seems highly unlikely to me, hence why I think this is probably a hoax. Adam9007 (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anjunabeats[edit]

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

Spotify considers AnjunaBeats to be a major proprietor of Trance music. Is that notable enough to warrant a minor Wikipedia entry? SpotifySpotlight Mochaman69 (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth makes this notable? This is near advertising. I can't find anything indicating notability in the first few pages of Google results. Laun chba ller 20:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is better to mention somewhere else like a list because I'm not finding any good coverage to suggest independent notability here and here. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:55, 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. Davewild (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glom (software)[edit]

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

Non-notable software, previously deleted by PROD then restored. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent WP:RS references. A search turned up incidental mentions and blog entries but no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:55, 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 keep. (NAC)--Antigng (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Lake House[edit]

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

Notability not established, no references, WP:OR, external links are to tangential topics or forums/blogs. Vrac (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Sources exist to verify the claim that this was a leading Poconos resort in its day. [34][35][36] The case would be stronger if there a non-local source could be identified. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep also per article stating it was a premier resort in the Poconos —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 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 01:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to "keep" arguments above, it is significant that the resort was deemed eligible for protection under the "Pennsylvania Historical Museum Commission Bureau for Historic Preservation". That probably means that there exists documentation of historic architectural, social or other importance. I'm not very familiar with Pennsylvania's rules, but in other states the designation of eligibility is a high standard, and the only difference between historic-register-listed places vs. these ones is that the owner(s) feared listing would reduce their property value. There's mention of archives of photos which probably have other documentation too. So it's most reasonable to believe there exists plenty of coverage meeting wp:GNG, although probably not available online. --do ncr am 03:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JAaron95 ^Talk 17:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Balzaretti[edit]

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

Delete: as utterly non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 02:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This actor was well-known in Mexico. Acted in scads of plays, films and telenovelas, won an Ariel Award (Mexico's most prestigious film awards). That his career mostly predated the rise of the web shouldn't be held against him. Vrac (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to his Ariel Award win for Best Supporting Actor, he was nominated for his work in two other films, once for Best Actor. The article had been completely unreferenced which I've remedied to some extent but it may take someone with better Spanish language skills than my own to take it further. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The award plus the sourcing now showing in the piece seems sufficient for passage of GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JAaron95 ^Talk 17:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Balzaretti[edit]

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

Delete: as utterly non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 02:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This actor was well-known in Mexico. Acted in scads of plays, films and telenovelas, won an Ariel Award (Mexico's most prestigious film awards). That his career mostly predated the rise of the web shouldn't be held against him. Vrac (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to his Ariel Award win for Best Supporting Actor, he was nominated for his work in two other films, once for Best Actor. The article had been completely unreferenced which I've remedied to some extent but it may take someone with better Spanish language skills than my own to take it further. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The award plus the sourcing now showing in the piece seems sufficient for passage of GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ExMplayer[edit]

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

New article, fails WP:NSOFT with no secondary sources. Was prodded, and the article creator removed the prod without addressing the problem. Possible WP:COI, as the article creator has the same name as the software's developer. McGeddon (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above; no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:35, 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. Davewild (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KPovModeler[edit]

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

Project is dead. The article didn't have secondary sources never --Be nt all (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion page was created without afd2 template and never transluded to a daily log. Fixed now--no further comment on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 18:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up forum posts, but no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete (with no apparently good target for moving elsewhere) as my searches found nothing particularly significant regarding coverage with the best being this. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Townlynx[edit]

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

Non notable bus company - There's nothing on this company at all except flickr images & bus timetables. Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 18:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 18:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable small company; article unreferenced since 2010.--MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as it fails WP:GNG. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Edwards and Son[edit]

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

Non notable bus company, Despite being created in 2006 the article's only gained one source and even that isn't perfect, Anyway I can't find anything except flickr images & directory/owner info. –Davey2010^Talk 21:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 21:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 21:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — about all I can find is the company's own website and reviews of their services. Not notable enough. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 21:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Staveley[edit]

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

Biography of an architect/surveyor based entirely on WP:OR. There's no proof he designed anything of particular importance. One of his teenage apprentices later went on to become a well known engineer, but Staveley doesn't seem to have played any part in Hawkesley's success. I've searched the online newspaper archive on Findmypast (where the Leicester and Nottingham newspapers are well-represented) and can find nothing of substance, other than mentions of Staveley in insolvency proceedings, a brief mention of the death of his brother (another architect) and a 9-word mention of Staveley's own death, age 70 in April 1837. It doesn't amount to much! Overall I think this sort of research should be left to local history websites, not Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable architect. Granted it is difficult to find material about people from his era, but architects do tend to get historical credit for notable work. I considered a redirect to one of his buildings, three of which have Wikipedia articles. But none of those articles mention him, and some of them date from much earlier than his life, so his contribution is unverified and may have been minor. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator, no evidence of notability at all. --ELEKHH^T 03:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maide bata[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax - nothing about this anywhere online Mdann52 (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure its a hoax - might just be a non-notable variant of Bataireacht. Still not worth keeping considering total absence of sources.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not reliable sources but you can't say "nothing" is online when the name is easily found in various blogs [37], [38], [39] and as the title of a YouTube video [40]. No hoax but maybe the name is a recent creation: Noyster (talk), 10:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG with no significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unsourced article definitely doesn't meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fehras Publishing Practices[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The article says they were est. 2015 so they have been an operating concern for at most six months. Maybe there is something in the German press but all I could find are links to their own web site and what looks like a blog entry in German [41]. Jbh ^Talk 12:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article created by someone associated with the company. It looks like the company is just launching, with no significant coverage in independent sources. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, google brings up nothing except publisher website which is dearth of information, definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON This is an activity that has just started and so far has not produced anything. It may be notable later. LaMona (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. COI, no indication that it belongs in an encyclopedia, verges on advertising. --Michig (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Due to lack of participation with no prejudice to a speedy renomination. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Venture Group[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this is notable as there isn't much good coverage, my searches found this (News, fades by the page 3 to 4), Books, (one page of results) and Highbeam (not many results). One of the links at Books and this says it was originally founded 2005 but closed soon after before reopening (also formerly known as simply Joshua Venture). I'd also suggest moving elsewhere but I'm not seeing a possible target. SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 5 albert square (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:37, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Cross[edit]

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

Non-notable animator; references are links to articles about projects he worked on, not really about him Orange Mike | Talk 15:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first four references are exclusively about Nick Cross... IsaacAA (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article seems to be in good standing regarding WP:GNG, it has five secondary sources about the topic: four interviews (regional magazine, industry magazine, indie magazine, trade organization) and one entertainment TV show cover the topic. Googling for interview gives at least five more interviews that have yet to be incorporated in the article, including one published in the book Canadian Animation (Chris Robinson, 2008). There doesn't seem to be any doubt regarding notability. IsaacAA (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IsaacAA's reasoning. --Jpcase (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Hoover[edit]

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

Voice actress who has only had supporting roles in anime (even the ANN bolded roles such as Gargantia, Giovanni's Island, Fairy Fencer F, and Danganronpa 2 showed that even those roles were supporting/minor). The one role that she had that was starring was for a short film (Kick-Start) that only appeared once on Adult Swim as a pilot episode. And she won an amateur voice-over contest to land that role. This can be revisited when she has some more major appearances at anime conventions (she only has one so far) and there are more articles that directly cover her and her history. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only item I found to add was a brief post from Fandom Post [42], current sourcing of the article is too weak. Esw01407 (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More inclined to delete - The article is neat and at least sourced but there's not much past that and this is vulnerable to BLP issues and I even thought of draft/userfy but it seems none of the users are active enough to suggest moving to userspace. My searches found nothing aside from some browser links and even her IMDb shows there's not much. SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G12) by Casliber .. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Jhonson[edit]

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

Multiple issues that would require a whole re-write. Peacocking, lack of BLP footnotes and likely fails GNG. Creator is constantly obstructing any possible progress by removing maintenance templates even after multiple warnings. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The main problem is that the majority of the text is a copyright violation of her personal website: http://myppk.com/PPKs/indexC.aspx?PPK=2868 (Artist personal website) I first put the page up for QD, but then realized that a different user had created the article. The copied text from her website was added later. (Or at least one was an IP and the other had registered). So I reverted to a clean version. Now all that has been just added back again, with barely any rewording. It still reads almost the same as her website. Please check the history of the article to see. Since I added the QD here: [43] and then reverted to a safe version here: [44] there have been many edits to re add. Copyright violation is a really bad issue and I am not touching the article again for all the tea in China. This is a mess and I tried. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 00:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:36, 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 keep. Davewild (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jahfarr Wilnis[edit]

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

Kickboxer who fails both WP:GNG and WP:KICK. The coverage is routine sports reporting and winning a title from a minor organization is not enough to show notability. Jakejr (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He will be notable in 7 days ;) .Master Sun Tzu (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't help that there is no indication here or in the article why that would be.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because he defeated Gerges Combatpress.com will rank him in top 10 in July. Delete him now, but you will return him in July :) Master Sun Tzu (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well its almost July now but its hard to predict absolutely what a third party may or may not do. Do you know when the combatpress rankings come out? This sounds like a case for Userfy rather than outright deletion.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Combatpress rankings are updated every month. On July 1. he will be in top 10 certenly. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - I think this AfD should remain open till then. Then votes can change.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wilnis is currently ranked 14th in the Glory promotion, so it's reasonable to assume his world ranking is lower. Assuming he'll be ranked in the top 10 requires a crystal ball. Since WP:KICK says the ranking should preferably be from at least 2 independent reliable organizations because of the variability in rankings, I will stick with my delete unless Jahfarr Wilnis is ranked in the top 10 by both Combat Press and liverkick.com (which is the usual benchmark). If both rank him in the top 10 then change my delete to keep. Jakejr (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all Glory rankings are not independent so do not mind them. For years Liverkick was only portal with independent rankings, now we also have Combat press. Difference is that Liverkick rankings updates are very rare, and Combat press does it every month, which is OK. And I don't see why their rankings are worse than those of Liverkick. They are even better because they are updated orderly. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 021:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that if he's ranked 14th by one promotion, there are likely to be other fighters in the rest of the world that would be ranked ahead of him if the rankings were combined. I'm sticking with guidelines that say 2 rankings are preferred. If two major rankings agree he's top ten then I support the claim of notability, otherwise not. Jakejr (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OMG OMG OMG look at the Glory's ranking For Christ's Sake, top 10 are Vigney, Barry, Lewis Parry, what are you talking about? If u don't know anything about kickboxing please leave this debate. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this comment at all. I don't see what difference it makes who is ranked ahead of him, the notability claim is based on his ranking. I think Jakejr's comment about the rankings of the 2 organizations is reasonable, although I can understand why supporters would settle for one. Hopefully, Liverkick and Combat Press will agree and simplify the decision. Papaursa (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liverkick updates their rankings once a year... So they can hardly agree, as changes happen every month. It is just a matter of luck who will be in top 10 by Liverkick. Combat Press is doing better job with their monthly rankings... Master Sun Tzu (talk) 03:30, 02 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This last statement is clearly false. I checked and found Liverkick updated their ratings in both February and May of this year (at least). That's not monthly but it's certainly more than once a year.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ranked in top 10 by Combat Press. Rankings Master Sun Tzu (talk) 12:05, 01 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is now ranked in the top 10 by Combat Press, but what helped convince me was the write-up at liverkick about the Kunlun event [45] where it says "With this tournament win Wilnis has propelled himself into the top ten with just one night of work." That seems like enough to meet WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:KICK with evidence provided by the two !voters here above. Kraxler (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - does pass WP:KICKGUIDE as a heavyweight fighter now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Downings[edit]

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

Request received through OTRS from articles namesakes management company.

The entry in your database about the gospel music group, The Downings, is written in an extremely skewed manner placing the author's personal preferences and tastes ahead of the facts. The article is full of errors... facts, grammar, typos, etc. The tone of the article makes it sound like every time the group changed personnel there was some kind of major scandal and that the changes resulted in less than stellar success, which is not true. Amortias (T)(C) 17:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article was probably written in good faith by an editor who is active on musical topics. Unsourced since its creation, however, and with many edits already WP:REVDEL'd it reads like a personal reflection or op-ed and Original Research and is clearly full of conjecture and author's own point of view. The problems are possibly fixable, but the effort in doing so dwarfs the effort involved in merely starting over (WP:TNT) especially considering that this is after all a BLP and must be held to high standards of sourcing. No objection to providing a copy of the article to the creator by email, but not even an unsourced draft should be permitted in any publicly accessible Wikupedia space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Kudpung and Amortias: What would you make of these sources and can an article be made with them? My searches found some results here, here (from News), here and here. Recently, some gospel groups had been nominated for deletion and several of them had won the Dove Awards (which is apparently said to be non-notable). SwisterTwister talk 17:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:33, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University of Applied Management[edit]

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

Notability of this institute is not established using significant coverage in secondary sources, nor could I find any. On the web, I only found directly affiliated sites and listings for prospective students, such as this one from Die Zeit. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - accredited universities are nearly always kept; this is the largest private university in Bavaria and by all accounts appear to be perfecly notable. The German article is much better. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then where's the proof of notability? The German version also cites only the institute's website and an organisation of which it is a member. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What "proof of notability" do you want? Accredited universities, along with top-level government agencies, are basically the only thing considered inherently notable. It has the normal coverage for a small university ie articles about events, interviews with professors, news guest speakers etc [46], [47], [48] —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that rule written down? WP:NSCHOOL says that "All universities, colleges and schools (...) must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both." The word "university" does not otherwise occur in that guideline. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Nearly always kept" refers to common outcomes. It's not a policy, but it is a trend. A trend shouldn't negate policy, but keeping institutions of higher education seems to have become a strong tradition. That said, although this particular institution is accredited, it is a limited curriculum private institution. I don't see significant third-party resources, although I didn't look for local (German) newspapers. I'm going for delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaMona (talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Limited curriculum? Irrelevant. Private? Irrelevant. Accredited degree-awarding institution? Highly relevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Max, I´ve edited the article about the university of applied management. Unfortunately the original version isn´t visible any more. The shown article isn´t the article I´ve created. The original one looks like the german article Hochschule für angewandtes Management, but with improvements by more citations to secondary ressources. I´ve rewrited the english article twice in order that it sounds less than an advertisement. It was my first article, so I´m sorry for some parts that aren´t congruent with the guidelines. I think the university of applied management should be in Wikipedia because it is state approved and it is mentioned in many cases by independent ressources like big newspapers or else. In the notability guidelines Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#No_inherent_notability you can read under the point schools: "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both." I´m not sure what mainstream education means, but the university of applied management is higher education, there you can get Bachelor and Master Degrees and after that you have the rights to do a doctorate. And that within a modern semi-virtual study concept, what means you have e-learning and attendance phases in a combination. In the english wikipedia are also many german universities like the FOM FOM_University_of_Applied_Sciences_for_Economics_and_Management or the SRH University SRH_Hochschule_Berlin. I will edit the article another time that you can evaluate the original text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Reiter87 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this version? There is exactly one reference pointing outside the university's website — to an ad. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was a newer edition without benefits and opportunities... — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Reiter87 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All universities are kept per longstanding precedent and consensus. We don't have rules; we have consensuses. This is one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per consensus mentioned before. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MS Design[edit]

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

Unreferenced article on small Austrian auto parts manufacturer fails WP:GNG, cannot find significant secondary coverage. Vrac (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: There are several sources that barely makes the mark as significant coverage on the company itself, however it is probably not enough for WP:CORP. Esquivalience ^t 00:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:33, 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Cross[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 21:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't quite meet notability requirements. A couple of reasonable-sized roles in B movies: Wet and Wild Summer! and The Last Patrol (aka The Last Warrior). Plus some smaller parts. But I can't see in-depth coverage, and that doesn't quite meet WP:NACTOR. Note that New Zealand actor Rebecca Carlton was also sometimes billed as Rebecca Cross or Rebekah Cross in the 1990s, the same time as this Rebecca Cross was working. Colapeninsula (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I personally believe she does pass NACTOR (Only #1 tho) but obviously fails GNG, Google doesn't bring up anything of relevence so delete. –Davey2010^Talk 20:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. My sweeps did not find anything, although there is an artist (probably notable) named Rebecca Cross in DC area. Somewhat common name.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Comenius University. Redirects are cheap. Jenks24 (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Problem Solving Contest[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are primary and unhelpful. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comenius University: Fails WP:ORG currently (some local coverage may exist, but not sufficient per WP:AUD), however a redirect and mention would be suitable. Esquivalience ^t 22:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 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 01:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not establish notability. You'd think a notable internet contest would have a presence on independent internet sources. It doesn't. ~Kvng (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 37Games. Redirect will obviously be deleted if 37Games is deleted at its AfD. Jenks24 (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Atlas[edit]

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

An article about a not notable video game which does not credibly claim the significance of the game in question. --Anar chyte 11:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to dev (37Games). Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Its only hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search were plain press releases. Makes sense to redirect to dev as a useful search term. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 14:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 37Games is about to be deleted, so there are no worthwhile redirection targets. – czar 19:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Reinstating the redirect opinion—looks like there are enough Chinese-language sources to keep the dev article in some form. – czar 12:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I would say redirect to 37Games, but I think that fails notability too so I've nominated that for deletion also. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard to redirect, then, and if the dev is deleted, all pages that redirect there will be deleted as well. – czar 15:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) The1337gamer (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 37Games. Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant RS refs, but developer may be notable and is a reasonable redirect target.Dialectric (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 37Games as a reasonable search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don Wilson (footballer)[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable athlete. Quis separabit? 11:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played in The Football League for Liverpool, as well as for several clubs in the Scottish League, so passes WP:FOOTYN. Article obviously needs massive improvement, though -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have moved the article that was nominated for deletion to David A. Wilson, because that is the title now given by the source (LFC History). I have created a new article at Don Wilson (footballer), for a footballer who played for Bury in the Football League during the 1950s and later managed some non-league clubs. Keep both articles because they both played at a fully professional level. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - both players have played for clubs in fully professional leagues and meet WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject played in the fully professional Football League and therefore pases WP:NFOOTY. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable, passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Iridescent per G1. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 11:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disowning Pain Phenomenon[edit]

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

While there are two references given in the article, one is a list of "amazing phenomenon" from a non-reliable source called Smashinglists, while the other is from a blog called Neurophilosophy (interestingly, the said article was published in 2008. So much for "discovered recently by neuroscientists"). A search reveals that there has been some coverage for this "phenomenon", although not under either the terms "disowning pain phenomenon" (which appears to have been coined by Smashinglists; indeed, the phrase only appears to exist on the site and mirrors of it) or "inverted binocular analgesia" (which does not appear outside of this Wikipedia article). The article could theoretically be merged to another article, or to be moved to a title which is more commonly used, but right now, I'm taking this to AfD to get more opinions on what should be done to the article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:15, 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. and salt. JohnCD (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awakening the wisdom (short story)[edit]

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

Un-notable short story. Also, this article was PRODded many times and recreated each time.Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 10:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. I've salted the main entry for this at Awakening the wisdom (just now) and I recommend salting this version as well. I can't find anything to show that this short story merits an entry on Wikipedia and I can't even find any mention of this story anywhere except for this Wikipedia page. It doesn't even seem to be listed on the publisher's website from what I can see. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't seem to have any real coverage in independent reliable sources and, the page is promotional. There are notable short stories, but this isn't one. –146.198.28.207 (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Already deleted. Thanks Gaijin. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Club Life: Volume Four New-York City[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:NALBUMS Gaijin42 (talk) 02:08, 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 speedy delete by Reaper Eternal as a blatant hoax (G3).(non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoopa and the Clash of Ages The Album[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as having no significant coverage in reliable sources. Bordering on a hoax. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Sky Beyond Time & Darkness the Motion Picture. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax and tagged as such. No album of this name exists; as far as I know, there will be a soundtrack album for this year's Pokémon movie, but not under this name. In fact, in Japan, the movie's ending theme is being released as a single rather than as part of an album. Note that the article had already been tagged for speedy deletion, but the article creator removed it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:20, 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 no consensus. The content of this article is not included in the Northern Rails article, so the CONTENTFORK argument is weak. The images in the articles suggest that Northern electrics is indeed a different brand. The content might be merged to Northern Rail, but none of the !voters suggested this. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Electrics (Northern Rail)[edit]

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

Delete Covered by Northern Rail. Not a separate company, not branded separately in announcements, and not all of Northern's electric routes have this branding. It is merely a limited-time promotional feature. It is not notable that trains are a different shade of purple, indeed some of Northern's other trains are branded in a red livery (West Yorkshire Metro), and some are blue. JaJaWa |talk 01:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The electrification of the Liverpool/Manchester/Preston/Blackpool routes is certainly notable, as shown by the sources. The remaining question is whether it is useful as a separate article, or better merged into Northern Rail. I personally think that many services, not just these, can be broken out from Northern Rail in summary style articles. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hroðulf (talk • contribs) 13:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a specific train service/line/operation in much the same way InterCity East Coast is operated by Virgin Trains East Coast. There's already too much topic-specific content here to be merged with the already long Northern Rail article. --Oakshade (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the franchise. I have no issue with an article called Northern (rail) franchise. JaJaWa |talk 18:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that considering the amount of detailed information the Northern Electrics article contains it should be retained. In my view there is too much information in the Northern Electrics article to summarise it all into a small section on the Northern Rail article - Coradia175 (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An article purely about the livery chosen by a railway company for a particular service it operates is not notable. Wikipedia is not a travel guide nor a means of promotion. These liveries are merely transient and the rest of the information is a WP:CONTENTFORK from a number of articles including Northern Rail and Northern Hub. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "livery", but an full infrastructure electrification service that distincts itself from the rest of the majority diesel operation of the rest of Northern Rail's network. --Oakshade (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Livery or branding, it adds up to the same thing. Northern Rail is not responsible for infrastructure improvements or electrification, this is Network Rail. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who was responsible for the previous infrastructure improvements, it's what the current electrification service is, which of course is different than "livery or branding."--Oakshade (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Northern Electrics is just a sub-brand of Northern Rail and should be included in that article. It is all part of the one franchise agreement, in much the same way that the Silverlink County and Silverlink Metro sub-brands have both included in the Silverlink article, Highspeed within Southeastern and Trans-Pennine Express within Arriva Trains Northern. Some brands do have separate articles, e.g. Gatwick Express which is a brand of Southern and Night Riviera which is a brand of First Great Western, but both of these had previous histories as standalone entities in the British Rail era. Mantrans7 (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The day after this article was created, I WP:PRODded it "Redundant content fork of Northern Rail". Although it has been expanded since, I still don't think it justifies a separate article. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VOX POP (debate)[edit]

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

Do not meet the requirement. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 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 01:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Un-notable event. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 10:33, 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 no consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Diatribe[edit]

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

The band's only album was released in its own studio, so it doesn't seem to pass criterion #5 from WP:BAND. There are a lot of links that allegedly support the content of the article in a rather unidentified way, but it's not clear which statement is supported by which source, or which of these references make the band notable. Many of these are a passing mention, others are not reliable sources, some I can't even access because of content filters (which says a lot about them). In short, the only claim to notability is WP:GNG, and it's unclear which sources account for notability and how. - Andrei (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some link has been added to the article of the indenpendent labels who released the band's albums.

La Bam Prod.
Independent Ear Records

- Errorofmind (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They also have an album review in the Hungarian offline Metal Hammer magazine (which is an evidence that the band counts and they are notable): * Omega Diatribe album review - Errorofmind (talk) 12:30, 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 01:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:36, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

King Deco[edit]

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

The subject has released one digital song and has had a few mentions on the interwebz--that's it. Not notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the nominator has evaluated things correctly. A few blogs have noticed that the young woman is attractive, as are millions of women. The moniker is clever, but that does not establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Aguirre[edit]

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

Unsourced name-dropping and resume language "over twenty years of experience in the music industry". No indication of notability. CorporateM (Talk) 04:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The current references do not establish notability, but only that this person and his career exists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK #1. The nomination is proposing a merge, rather than deletion. A merge discussion can continue on a talk page, or perhaps boldly performed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yahweh's Assembly in Yahshua[edit]

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

Reason This page should be incorporated in the Sacred Name Movement page. Lacks references and is not notable enough for its own page. In Citer (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- This reads as if it is a single congregation, which has splintered from a larger movement. The movement probably qualifies for an article as being a small denomination, but local churches are generally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 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. postdlf (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sutton SignWriting Unicode Sequences for 1D8E4[edit]

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

This is a discussion of this article and all others on SignWriting by Slevinski. Not notable enough to be on Wikipedia, and should be merged into SignWriting. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 01:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A partial list of articles nominated for deletion:

‎Sutton SignWriting Unicode Sequences for 1D8E3
‎Sutton SignWriting Unicode Sequences for 1D8E2
Sutton SignWriting Unicode Sequences for 1D8E1
Sutton SignWriting Unicode Sequences for 1D8E0
and all other articles beginning with "Sutton SignWriting Unicode Sequences for". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk • contribs) 01:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidate Sutton SignWriting in Unicode might be a nice article to create, but this overload of lists is unwaranted. There are at least a gross of them! I don't believe this has been done for other languages. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have only created some of the pages. If completed, there would be 652 individual charts. You can see all of the links on the main Sutton_SignWriting_(Unicode_block). The blue links have been created. The reds have not. If consolidated, the page would be over 8 MB. This is not for an individual language, but for the SignWriting script which can be used to write any sign language. Currently, dozens of sign languages use this script. There are over 100 sign languages that are recognized. I thought individual pages would be more economical in size. I can create a consolidated page if desired. We have been discussing the charts on User_talk:BabelStone#SignWriting_in_Unicode_detailed_character_sequences. @Drmccreedy: @BabelStone: Slevinski (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Slevinski:'s proposed 652 charts seem excessive. I like the chart idea to demonstrate how the fill and rotators work but couldn't that be demonstrated by a handful of charts instead of an exhaustive, complete set showing all valid combinations? DRMcCreedy (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The simple script I used is available online to create whatever charts might be useful. Enter the code, press submit, and then press save page. This will preview the page in Wikipedia. You can copy the chart markup from the preview. Slevinski (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We already have SignWriting § SignWriting in Unicode where an encyclopedic overview can be given. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the above reasoning by Qwertyus. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia is not a good home for these article, perhaps Wiktionary might be better. There is already a page on Wiktionary with a listing of the code points and links to individual pages. The articles would need to be reformatted, but it might work. For the Sutton_SignWriting_(Unicode_block) page, the links for each of the base symbols could link to the Wiktionary articles. Slevinski (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. As far as I can tell, these pages contain nearly no information. It's just a huge number of lists with combinations of symbols, with no explanation of what the combination might mean. If possible meanings in different sign languages were actually added then it wouldn't belong here anyway since we are not a dictionary, not even for normal written English. Some pages like Sutton SignWriting Unicode Sequences for 1D84D show invalid combinations but that isn't worth up to 652 pages. The table headings contain information like "U+1D84D SIGNWRITING HAND-FLAT HEEL FIVE FINGERS SPREAD", but that information is for a single symbol and not the combinations, so it should be combined in a single list somewhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The table heading "SIGNWRITING HAND-FLAT HEEL FIVE FINGERS SPREAD" is for all of the symbols. The table displays the various rotations and palm facings for this hand shape. It helps to have the fonts installed. The charts are much more interesting than a groups of empty boxes. If you'd rather not install the SignWriting 2010 fonts on your computer, you can include some custom CSS that will load the fonts from a CDN. Instructions on my user page. Slevinski (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All: not contested. Please delete all of these pages. There is no reason for further discussion. I believe Wiktionary is a proper place for these pages. If not, I have created the SignWriting Character Viewer that will serve a similar purpose. Regards, Slevinski (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to see that the creator has found a home for his work. Carrite (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - I bumped into these in the New Articles queue. Not encyclopedic, not sourced, and not notable under our guidelines. I'm sorry that someone went to so much trouble. Carrite (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quarto Miglio[edit]

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

I live in Quarto Miglio and can confidently say that it has no redeeming interest that would justify a separate article. The church mentioned is a relatively new one and is of little interest. Gina Lollobrigida lives there and Valentino (fashion designer) used to but that hardly merits an article. Roundtheworld (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Populated places are considered notable per WP:GEOLAND. Natg 19 (talk) 01:12, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk! Tsk! Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating on behalf for User:DissidentAggressor after an previous AfD on the wrong page (the last AfD that concluded as no consensus due to no participation), whose original rationale is As was noted in the previous AFD, the only refs that can be found are from either Facebook or blogs. IMHO, the previous AFD should have been closed as "no objection", which I agree after searches on GNews and GBooks. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 00:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as the guy who screwed up the AFD nomination that Hisashiyarouin un-fouled, submitted and agreed with. The Dissident Aggressor 03:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable record label. Of the three "notable" artists, the best-sourced one does not mention the label at all. 1: Label can not be construed as one of the "more important indie labels" per NMUSIC. 2: Label does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. 3. There's really no useful information in the article at all. It exist(s/ed). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of significant coverage. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as my searches found nothing particularly good so they live to their "independent label" name and I certainly wish I had commented at the first AfD. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, can be userfied on request--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Courvoisier[edit]

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

Not notable. The only source that discusses him in some detail is Distinguished Women and Men in Nevada; all others mention him only in passing and at times explicitly call him a "local television personality". Nothing else found via Google News. Huon (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He hasn't received significant coverage. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe draft/userfy if it helps the user but my searches found nothing particularly outstanding and significant here, here and here. The awards are probably regional at best so there's not much for universal notability there and there's also no target for moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above reasons. No reason to keep this page. Primefac (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Touring Europe With A Blast From The Past[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Jbh ^Talk 13:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 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 01:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:NALBUM. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose instead of redirecting to Cloudscape's discography as my searches found nothing to suggest good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Paul Banks (singer)#Solo project. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody On My Dick Like They Supposed To Be[edit]

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

Little content provided, appears to be non-notable mix tape. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the creator of this article has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, it is unlikely much feedback will be received from them. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 00:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Paul Banks#Discography as it seems this is not notable but at least received somewhat coverage here and here. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 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 01:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Selling News[edit]

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

There's no significant coverage of this publication beyond passing mentions. The third-party sources are attempts at generalizing from example and don't cover Direct Selling News itself in any detail. Huon (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an industry trade publication, we're not talking TIME or Forbes here. I believe there are ample sources provided. Further, the sources are not attempts at generalization, there are numerous sources that utilize Direct Selling News when covering the industry, especially with regards to company size and growth.

A quick perusal of the Trade Magazine Stubs page showed 228 entries, the vast majority of which were significantly less robust. Virgil06 (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Virgil06: So is that a keep vote? SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 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 01:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but somewhat leaning delete when I saw mostly press releases here with other searches finding results here, here and here (mostly press releases in the last one). Sources say this is "largest trade publication in its industry" and has achived "Top 100" and such so I'm not sure if it makes it notable in its industry or marginally notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. An error occurred in which the previous AfD discussion is nominated for deletion herein. The nomination has been corrected and is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsk! Tsk! Records (2nd nomination). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsk! Tsk! Records[edit]

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

As was noted in the previous AFD, the only refs that can be found are from either Facebook or blogs.

IMHO, the previous AFD should have been closed as "no objection" The Dissident Aggressor 00:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close this You nominated on the last AfD but not the actual article. I have renominated for you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsk! Tsk! Records (2nd nomination). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 00:52, 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.

Trevor Billingham[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) (Almost appears to have been withdrawn) -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The subject doesn't appear to meet WP:NSPORTS or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The sources don't appear to be independent. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we should be able to round up enough sources about the founder of Little Athletics. He has a memorial in Geelong which is a good start.-- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources are reasonably improved, I'll withdraw my nomination.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is not appropriate, as I told the proposer on my talk page after he queried my de-proding of this article. The 2nd dot point states -" School teachers at the secondary education level, sometimes also called professors, are not presumed to be academics and may only be considered academics for the purposes of this guideline if they are engaged in substantial scholarly research and are known for such research. They are rather evaluated by the usual rules for notability in their profession". The subject taught at Corio Technical School, which I am fairly sure is/was a secondary college. I agree with Mattinbgn. Let us now look for sources. It would have been better if the sources had been queried on the article before coming here, but here it is and I may have encouraged the proposer to do so. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have found several links and added them to the article. I have also removed redlinks, none of which I think deserves an article, except perhaps the school but sources will be difficult there. The article is not great but I think it meets out notability guidelines now. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bduke and Mattinbgn: The sources all relate to Little Athletics. Even the source I consider to be the best one added [49], mainly focuses on the organization. The ones that focus on the subject of this article are in-house from the organization he started. Notability isn't inherited. I think a section on this individual would be better at the organization he started, because they only seem to be notable for that one thing. Notability requires significant independent coverage, and that just doesn't seem to exist in this case.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The orbituary shows he was notable in the wider athletics community. Here are a couple of other sources - discussed in book on volunteering [50], a UK major newspaper [51]. Little Athletics seems to be a very wide and diffuse organisation and his role in it absolutely crucial so maybe we need an article on him and the organisation. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm unable to view the book, the article source is titled "Little Athletics has made a big difference". Again it focuses on the organization. The obituary describes his life, but that doesn't make any of those details notable, other sources are needed for that.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The entity that he founded makes the founder significant, assuming sourcing can be found to verify a biographical piece. In addition to the sourcing showing in the article HERE is an obituary from Geelong Athletics. THIS indicates he is the namesake of a national championship trophy. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That South Coast Register article does it for me [52]. I'll work on adding a sentence and that source plus another regarding the trophy later on, unless someone else gets to it before me. Being the namesake of that trophy (assuming the trophy itself is notable) establishes notability beyond the organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godsy (talk • contribs) 17:10, 7 July 2015

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] "Review: High-tech Parkroyal Darling Harbour". NewsComAu.

[2] "Hotel of the Week - Parkroyal Darling Harbour, Sydney". The Australian.

[3] Pooja Thakur Mahrotri (15 January 2013). "Raffles Place Room Shortage Eases With Parkroyal: Southeast Asia". Bloomberg.com.

[4] "Parkroyal on Pickering, Singapore - a slice of jungle paradise in the city". South China Morning Post. 14 March 2015.

[5] "Parkroyal Parramatta's $25 million extension". Spice magazine.

[6] "A breath of fresh flair". The Australian.

[7] "Pan Pacific to introduce Parkroyal brand in RI". thejakartapost.com.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]