Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 June	7 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ranks in the Catholic clergy[edit]

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

This article seems to be redundant, covered rather extensively in Hierarchy of the Catholic Church Pax85 (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The churches, no matter how hierarchical ("hierarchy" is literally "priest rule"), don't have "ranks." There is no merge material, nor redirect necessary. People working for the RCC don't get "promotions" or battlefield commissions to cardinal. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. It's all covered in Hierarchy of the Catholic Church, which is a much better article. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, criterion G7, deletion requested by sole contributor of material. —C.Fred (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VihoApp[edit]

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

Non-notable app, PROD contested by article creator. The product has been out 2-3 weeks, and I cannot find any reliable sources about it, only websites saying how to download it. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it please Its my mistake I am sorry for any convenience this may have caused. (I have visited viho's facebook page and seen one of the actor who is in bollywood Mr Shahrukh khan holding using VihoApp so I thought it was famous)

Link: https://www.facebook.com/VihoApp/photos/a.276270209213156.1073741825.276262782547232/279647542208756/?type=1&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.alyson (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Junuz Salihi[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer, they have only played in Macedonian Third League, and for Macedonia U16, neither of which are sufficient to pass WP:NFOOTY. Clearly fails WP:GNG as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. A search for indications of notability turned up nothing but the typical blogs, social media pages, etc., and the leagues in which he plays are not listed on this page. --Biblioworm 23:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:43, 10 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. As per usual leniency is given to pre 90s articles as sources are always next to none impossible to find - I personally believe there's sources offline, Anyway consensus is to Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohabbat Ki Kasam[edit]

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

Notability tag for 3.5 years. I tried searching for sources but couldn't find any- found lots for a song of the same name, but no evidence of connection. Only sources I could find were [1] and [2], which show they exist, but nothing else. Fails WP:GNG abd WP:NFILM. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely delete as searches found no good sources aside from Books and IMDb lists no awards so there may not be any. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This does meet GNG and Film requirements. It's from a dark period in Hindi cinema though which is poorly documented. I'd imagine reviews and coverage in Indian newspapers of the period. which aren't online too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Blofeld's reasoning. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

ALT: WP:INDAFD: Mohabbat Ki Kasam मोहब्बत की कसम

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

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

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

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

Keep pre-internet Indian sources are near impossible to find. But this topic is verifiable and has made it into the enduring historical record. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Mastrogiacomo[edit]

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

Delete: tragic untimely death notwithstanding, she does not meet threshold for notability as actress. Quis separabit? 21:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not sure why this is being tagged except it's unreferenced. She was a successful actress who died young, but I don't see why she fails GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMBd is not a source which alone can justify keeping an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find anything on her ... Not even stuff about her death - Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UK Independence Party leadership election, 2015[edit]

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

The election won't be happening this year. Nigel Farage announced his resignation, but his UKIP superiors rejected it. Therefore, Farage has decided to stay as leader for now. ~~Merger to Nigel Farage might be likely, but the story of his near-resignation will be very small. Similar~~ story has been told elsewhere, like in United Kingdom general election, 2015 and the "Nigel Farage" article. George Ho (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unnecessary given that there is no election. Number 5 7 20:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above as event that didn't take place, only received day-to-day news coverage, rumour, and speculation, and doesn't seem to have had any wider impact (aside from making Farage look slightly flakier). Already covered in other articles. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never happened, nor did any candidates confirm interest. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I have already copied material over to the UKIP article. Bondegezou (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only serves to confuse readers about whether there is or isn't an election. Bondegezou has already copied the info to other articles so we're not going to lose anything either. Seagull123 (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This information could be reduced to a paragraph in either Farage's bio or the UKIP page. Alligators1974 (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All this is mentioned on the UKIP, Nigel and GE 2015 articles so this article is pretty much redundant. –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 13 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Rico[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelcartwright1973 A professional footballer cannot make any professional league appearances during the off season, also Jordan Rico Richardson has been victim of two MCL injuries over the past 10/12 months and has only recently finished rehabilitation. I was unsure how to respond to your deletion proposal earlier as I'm new to Wikipedia. I propose the article to be continued until the new English football leagues begin in July/August 2015. If Rico is still yet to make an appearance in a professional league then the article shall happily be removed with my willing concent. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelcartwright1973 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC) — Michaelcartwright1973 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete They haven't played a game in 3 years as a senior player, no evidence they will play one anytime soon. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Can be recreated if the player makes an FPL appearance next season. Fenix down (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never played a pro game, no evidence that he will any time soon. In fact I can't find any evidence online that he is even still with Stoke. As noted above, in the event that he does play professionally, the article can easily be re-created, but we don't keep articles on non-notable subjects on the off-chance that they may become notable in a few months.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:04, 13 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angie Rivera[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:NACTOR, WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Sending WP:APPNOTE to PRehse. Boleyn (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was sitting on this, hoping the article would be improved enough to show any of the above. But since it is here I will go for deletion as per nominator. This is very much an autobiographical advert.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sitcom she has appeared in does not even have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax, or at the very least, as spectacularly unverifiable. The article provides two references. One of them is an instagram account, so not reliable, and in any case, the account doesn't appear to exist. The first source appears legit unless yoou actually read it. The article claims the NOLA article title is "Angie Rivera stars in 'Love But Not' a new upcoming show.", but in fact it is "Cymphonique Miller stars in 'How to Rock'", and makes no mention of an Angie Rivera. In fact, there seems to be no trace of the program "Love But Not", not even on the BET.com site itself. A search for her purported album turns up nothing either. -- Whpq (talk) 18:53, 12 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 - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacki Cooper[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Potential promotion; creator and other main contributor both SPAs. Boleyn (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sending WP:APPNOTE to Girlsgottasing and Jeraphine. Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as it stands, though if the claims are correct then sourcing should be feasible - David Gerard (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)~~ Keep per Shaidar (and how did I guess I'd be typing that) - David Gerard (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, described in numerous independent reliable sources, won a national award, nominated for an international award, released six albums. I've added some refs and content. More toning down and citations are needed but the subject is notable at WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn per above. Good work! Boleyn (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indian village christ lutheran church[edit]

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

Does not appear to be WP:NOTABLE; possibly promotional. Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sending WP:APPNOTE to JJMC89. Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced article that fails WP:GNG. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pretty obviously ported from someone's promotional website or the "About Us" link somewhere. Meanwhile, the article is useless. (Has a whole generation lost its thumb and become unable to find the shift key and capitalize? Or do people think that proper nouns don't need capital letters. . . even "Christ?") After one deciphers the title, it's pointing at a "Lutheran Church" called "Christ Lutheran Church" at a place called "Indian Village" in some US state or some nation. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and promotional. I suspect it's also a copyvio, but the copyvio checker isn't working for me right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete – Does not meet WP:N. After several searches, only found one passing mention here, in the Grosse Pointe News. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have speedied as spam if I'd got there first Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Substantial RS coverage not found in search. The article's tone is promotional because it's a paraphrase copy of the church's website. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly promotional page on a non-notable topic. No obvious coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roomster[edit]

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

There is evidence (from the BBB and elsewhere online) that this service is a scam. It seems more mild attempts to edit rather than delete have all been reverted, possibly by interested parties. The notability of this website is also questionable. MukashiEcho (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see enough coverage to meet GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Also, while not relevant to the deletion discussion, there is a heavy amount of COI editing. Safiel (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding some mention of the app here and there, typically brief, trivial mentions in places that just list roommate services like this article. I think that this article is a pretty good example of the lengthiest stuff out there, which really isn't much. I'll search some more, but offhand there really isn't a lot out there. That the website seems to have sent people over to make the article as positive as possible really doesn't help matters much either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment above. I searched a little more but found absolutely nothing to suggest that this company/app would pass notability guidelines. It gets an occasional mention here and there, but it's almost always briefly done. The most substantial mentions are ones alone these lines where the app gets a paragraph mention... only the paragraph is pretty obviously lifted from a press release. This just doesn't pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also recommend a block for the obvious COI SPA (Rzaks) currently editing the article. I've got a sneaking suspicion that they might be a WP:MEATPUPPET of Nilborno, who was blocked for COI editing. Their edit comments are pretty promotional in tone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" comment is too generic to take seriously, linking to a page of search results only. Sandstein 18:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flexible contracts[edit]

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

Very generic legal term that does not meet WP:GNG; has been tagged multiple issues for 6+ years. If there is any useful info on this article it can be merged to Energy in the United Kingdom. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, and generic term. AlbinoFerret 02:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean by no sources and generic term? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology A flexible contract is any contract that is flexible ie subject to varying terms or renegotiation. Of course you will find a lot of results. That's not the same as significant coverage. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying that a passing mention means "Significant coverage". Significant coverages addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. The subject of the article had been widely discussed in multiple independent reliable sources. The is an objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable.Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 04:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology You only linked to a Google search, so I'm not sure which sources you're referring to - the only coverage I see that has an actual focus refers to the employment contract controversy in the UK (such as this one here), but that topic already exists at Zero-hour contract. Flexible contract is such a generic term that it's more suitable for Wiktionary ("a flexible contract is a contract with varying terms.") than a full WP article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to google search for you to see how it has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. I really don't want to engage in much argument on this. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- Per significant coverages In multiple independent reliable sources [3]. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a legal term of art used in a single small field in one place. There are no reliable sources in the article, and I can't think of any. I can't see how this stub would be of any use to either a lawyer or a layperson. WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can find links to sites about flexible contracts for electricity and gas from the utility companies, e.g.:[4]. However, it seems like the main thrust of the topic is less related to the consumer market and more a general energy market concept [5]. It's possible that there are significant articles in the energy business press. However, the term "flexible contracts" is much too generic. The title needs to be specific to the energy market, and the information probably would come from business journals and particularly energy business journals. LaMona (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shii (tock) 07:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: LaMona's suggestion of changing the title seems like a good idea, though I don't feel like I can make that decision. I note that this discussion was not delsorted into any legal pages. I will add it into one and I will also alert a Law wikiproject about this discussion. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Significant edits have been made to improve the article and it now meets the criteria for inclusion. Nakon 21:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

God Made Me Funky[edit]

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

This was first brought to my attention through WP:RFP (Special:Diff/664377358). Essentially, there's a feud in the band including a trademark lawsuit, and two rival groups within the band have begun edit-warring over this page (see Special:diff/664343201 on Jaaron95's talk page). ~~Given the WP:BLP issues involved and the thin notability of this band, I'm requesting deletion on the "notability unclear, default to delete due to BLP concern" argument.~~ Der yck C. 10:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to keep after Bearcat's edits. Der yck C. 08:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Der yck C. 11:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Der yck C. 11:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable band, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joseph's rationale and since the article is a stub containing no referenced info of any importance other than the fact it is a funk band.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable band --_nonsense ferret 13:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only non dead ref link is to the bands website. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regret: It's sad to see the pain involved, and we needn't go insulting folks already suffering injury. (It's more of a wonder that any bands last than that they do not.) On the basis of BLP, delete. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I represent this band and it's seven current members. I started this band in 1997, years before this ex band member joined the band. We greatly appreciate you taking the time to consider this page for deletion. While we would like it to remain alive it would only be with the correct information. Otherwise we ask that it be deleted. A former band member (who was let go due to unprofessional behaviour) with whom we are in a legal battle with does not represent the band God Made Me Funky and has changed the website url to a fraudulent website. Further more they have locked us out of several social media pages and are still performing under our name. Furthermore there are pictures of myself and all current band members which we want removed if this page will not be deleted. As you can see the official website of the band is www.godmademefunky.com and has been listed as such since at least 2005. A quick google search will show you the strength and trust of this domain. We control and own this domain name. While the band has released a few albums we are focusing on performing at private events, weddings, and corporate events and are putting the original band music on hold for now. Thank you for considerations in advance and we hope to put this issue behind us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.180.31 (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. My name is Michael Wilson (PKA. PHATT al) and I am the lead band member and business license owner of the Toronto band and recording act God Made ME Funky. I am also the lead writer and publisher of all of the original material produced by God Made Me Funky. The former members are currently a cover band, operating out of Toronto, using the www.GodMadeMeFunky.com url. There has been a dispute with the band's previous event booker, Fusion Events, resulting in them taking the band's original url from us. We have since updated our official band website to: www.godmademefunkyband.com, as seen on our official twitter, facebook, and various social media sites. I've included documentation of our current valid business license in the dropbox link below: https://www.dropbox.com/s/q1wmm4sul2o5b6a/God%20Made%20Me%20Funky%20-%20Ontario%20Busines%20License%20-%20Michael%20Wilson.pdf?dl=0 Please let me know what else you would need from me in terms of verifying that we are the group actively known as God Made ME Funky. I hope to keep our wikipedia page active and close this matter once and for all. Thank you. Michael Wilson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.59.204 (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. To respect Mr.Wilson's privacy I did not name him however he did that himself. While Mr. Wilson does indeed own “a” business called God Made Me Funky (as proven with his Provincial business license), I’m sure you are aware that there is nothing to prevent more than one business from using the same name. In fact, you will note on that on Mr. Wilson’s business license the date of issue was three months ago. The God Made Me Funky that I own was first registered as a sole proprietorship almost 10 years ago and I have performance contracts, signed by me, going back that far and which mention the band name to prove that we were doing business as God Made Me Funky long before Mr. Wilson’s business registration and long before he was even a member of the band. We are also registered federal in Canada, which means we collect federal sales tax and remit those to the government through an annual tax filing, all done under the name God Made Me Funky. Proof of these claims is available should you require it.

What controls use of the name is the trademark. And, while Mr. Wilson has applied for that trademark, we have contested this filing and are confident that the “first use” provision in Canadian trademark legislation will see that we, the original band members, will ultimately be granted the trademark. Until such time, we do not want Mr. Wilson to be using Wikipedia to promote his band or misrepresent information about the band to your users. However, unlike Mr. Wilson, we are not asking you to take a side. We realize that that is something the courts must do. We are simply asking that you not take either side by not allowing either version of the Wikipedia page to stay up. In particular, it is a threat to our business to have the Wikipedia page pointing to Mr. Wilson’s website. The website is, as it has been for over 10 years, godmademefunky.com. However, once again, we are not asking you to take a side. Please simply remove all references to a band website.

Once a legal decision is made regarding the trademark dispute then we will of course accept the decision of the courts and ask for the appropriate Wikipedia entry to be put back up (and would expect Mr. Wilson to do the same or face further legal challenges). We have been informed that this could take upwards of two years to achieve. Thank you very much for you attention to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.148.124 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Juno nominated [6]. There is coverage out there, egs [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Wikipedea is not the venue for personal battles. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created at a different time in Wikipedia's evolution — as long as it was possible to verify the information somewhere, sourcing didn't have to be cited in the article nearly as extensively as it does now, and our rules about what constitutes a reliable source weren't nearly as well-developed as they are in 2015 either. Yes, things have changed, and no, the article was not in accordance with current wikistandards in the form that existed at the time of nomination. But the volume of coverage necessary to bring the article back up to contemporary standards does exist per Duffbeerforme, and being a Juno Award nominee is a valid notability claim which does satisfy WP:NMUSIC #8 right on its face. (They also get over #2, #4, #5, #10 and #11 — but admittedly most of the stuff which satisfies those criteria had never actually been added to the article until now.)
I've already repaired the existing sourcing problems and bolstered the basic notability with Duff's links and some further additions via ProQuest — while further sourcing improvement is certainly still needed, it's already enough to pass both WP:GNG and NMUSIC. The existence of a trademark lawsuit between two competing versions of the band following an internal creative dispute, further, is not a reason why the article should be deleted outright — it's certainly a reason why the article should be monitored for editwarring, and potentially pageprotected on a neutral version for the time being, but it does not constitute a reason why an article should not exist at all. Which is especially true if the same people who want it deleted also want it to subsequently come back when the dispute is over — if they're not notable enough to have an article now, then they're not notable enough to simply have the same article recreated later on either.
Keep, with indefinite page protection in place to kibosh any POV disputes until we can properly source that the trademark dispute has been resolved one way or the other — this is a matter of mediating between competing conflicts of interest, not something which falls within the purview of AFD to fix. All we have to do to stay neutral in this matter is to not touch the question of name ownership at all for the time being, which will be quite easy to do since no reliable source coverage of the matter actually exists yet. And even if such coverage does eventually start to exist, we can quite easily document the existence of a trademark dispute without actually prejudging who's right and who's wrong. As unfortunate as all of this is, they're not the first band, nor even the first notable band, in musical history ever to go through it — so it's not a situation that we need to treat differently than we did when it happened to The Beach Boys, The Drifters, The Platters, Ratt, Queensryche, L.A. Guns or Hawkwind. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seem notable to me. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - tl;dr; Juno-nominated —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat asked me to comment, as I often edit articles on Canadian music. First I'll emphasize the obvious point that this article when the AfD started has undergone significant change since Bearcat added to it. Second, I'll say that the sources are definitely reliable ones – multiple Canadian newspapers and the music magazine Exclaim! which is well respected and is often used in sourcing of Canadian music articles on Wikipedia. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Band is clearly notable. Wikipedia is not a battleground, especially for people with conflicts of interest. -- Whpq (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NBAND # 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11. Kraxler (talk) 16:12, 14 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How I Braved Anu Aunty and Co-Founded a Million Dollar Company[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: there are several sources about the author that mention the book in passing, but none I have found are detailed enough to count towards the two non-trivial sources needed for WP:NBOOK #1. Varun Agarwal is notable but his book isn't. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my mind to Keep, per two of the new sources added to the articles ([15][16]). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 10:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redirecting to author is another possibility. Boleyn (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sending WP:APPNOTE to Sitush. Boleyn (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend a redirect so far. I've found one book review from the TOI, but by large the book is predominantly mentioned in relation to the guy's work as a whole. I'll see what else I can find before making a final judgement, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Varun Agarwal~~ with history. This one is frustrating since I keep reading things that give off the impression that there should be more coverage for the book in specific. It sold pretty well and it's mentioned in various locations that the book is seen as a pretty inspirational text for the most part, but I can't really find anything out there that does more than mention the book in passing. I'm going to ask WP:INDIA for help looking for sources since Google (and most English language search engines) will not properly crawl search results. (Many results can, for whatever reason, only be pulled up if you use a specific search engine and/or if you are in India.) If they find anything I'm willing to change my mind, but otherwise I say that this should just redirect to the author's page. There is the chance that more coverage might come out in the future since one or two pages mentioned movie rumors, so leaving the history behind might be helpful. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to keep per Skr15081997's additional review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's another review published in The Tribune. Together with the Times of India review, this satisfies WP:NBOOK.--Skr15081997 (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Review in TOI[17], Tribune,[18] Hindu,[19] best seller,[20]. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:06, 13 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The African-American Historical News Journal[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY in any form. Boleyn (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't what it seems. It is a book, not a journal, and was published in 2011. It has no ISBN, that I can find, isn't for sale anywhere but on the page of the one site listed in the article. I cannot find any statement about who publishes it. However, because of what evidence we do have, I am assuming that it is self-published. It does not appear in WorldCat, nor Amazon. (From the Charlotte's Observer article, the only reference: "The 64-page book documents 178 years of history through digitized copies of the actual historical newspaper articles." LaMona (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd agree that this looks to be self-published (at least to a degree) this article gives off the strong impression that this book was put together by a group of people who knew one another and who banded together to form this publisher. While self-published books can occasionally be notable, I can't find anything to show that this book would be one of those types of work. If this is the same book that is mentioned here (which looks likely) then it's only held in one library, which contradicts the claims in the CO article that the book is held in multiple schools. Basically this is a pretty solidly non-notable book as far as NBOOK goes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:59, 10 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) 18:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Shot in the Arm[edit]

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

No references since November 2006, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Tagged with notability concerns since Sept 2013. Prod declined, hence AfD. Richhoncho (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The prod was invalid, not declined. --Michig (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~to Summerteeth.~~ to Shot in the arm. The nominator appears to be correct about this song not meeting NSONG or GNG. Everymorning talk 18:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't support a redirect, because it's pretty easy to imagine some other entity with this name showing up. If it does, the author of that article will find that the "article" is taken. If it's a new author.... "Shot in the Arm" is a good song, and "Summerteeth" is my favorite Wilco record, but it's a song that didn't become a major single. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreeing with Hithladaeus. I'm not sure what WP guidelines for single->album redirects are, but I noticed that Can't Stand It is a redirect to Summerteeth as well. I'd suggest we are consistent one way or the other, but that might not be possible. Amkilpatrick (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreeing with Hithladaeus and Amkilpatrick.Pincrete (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have stricken and replaced my previous redirect target per Hiehladaeus's comment. Everymorning talk 13:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G4, this was recreated a few months after a previous AfD, unsourced, and should not have been sitting here for 9 years. Kraxler (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above comments. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 19:12, 14 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) 15:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Caveney[edit]

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

Written a fair number of books, but I cannot find evidence that he meets WP:GNG much less WP:AUTHOR. Google searched turned up almost nothing aside from Amazon, GoodReads, and blogs. Primefac (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I can confirm that 1) he is published by reputable children's publishers 2) three of his books were reviewed by Booklist 3) he has been a contender (but not winner) of a book prize [21] 4) his books can be found in a few hundred libraries in WorldCat (that's not a lot, but it's >zero). That said, children's and young adult authors don't get much recognition, so it is hard for them to achieve the kind of notability that an academic author might with just a single book. LaMona (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this author's books are very popular, some are blue-linked here:Sebastian Darke.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:- Subject of the article meet WP:AUTHOR#3. He had created a significant or well-known work and one of his well-known work is Sebastian Darke. I also found Edinburgh book review, The Guardian, Writers Stories TV and Manchester Evening News to mention few. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete/snow close as WP:G11, WP:G12. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian national health cards[edit]

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

PROD removed by page creator, with (gasp of surprise, not) no reason. Fails GNG and WP:NOTHOWTO TheLongTone (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. While the topic might pass the GNG (seeing how much coverage the subpar distribution and implementation problems got in the national press), in this form the article is simply an official FAQ, nothing more, nothing to recue here. As it is a verbatim translation of the link, it also falls under Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Plus: the site notice Copyright © 2015 CNAS.ro. All rights reserved makes it also a copyright infringement. --Mihai (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged for speedy delete - thanks Mihai —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per the others. Even if the topic is notable, WP:TNT applies; nothing to rescue here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Brinded[edit]

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

For being such a "well respected" referee, I cannot find much on Brinded outside of obituaries and one-sentence mentions of him as referee for various matches (e.g. "Colin Brinded, the referee, made no such move..."). I do not see how he is any more than a guy doing his job. Primefac (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think a BBC obituary is probably sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:- I would have to agree with Necrothesp. In addition to the BBC, I also found The Irish Times, Supreme Snooker, The Guardian, Snooker.pl, Short News, The Free Library, Times of malta, The Independent News, This book, Snooker Referees and Officials, The Telegraph, The eurosport, The Independent News, The Telegraph and Argus, Breaking News, The Scotsman, Wales online to mention few. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this is my issue, though, that only one of your non-obit references discuss Brinded in any significant detail, which is one of the cornerstones of GNG. Primefac (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, it is a long-established consensus in AfDs that an obituary in even one major national media outlet such as a number of those listed above is sufficient for notability. Essentially, if they consider an individual notable enough for an obituary it would be more than faintly ridiculous for us, an encyclopaedia with approaching 5 million articles, not to consider them notable enough for an article. Their standards of notability for obituaries are actually far more stringent than ours for articles (any pointless minor celebrity who's been chattered about a lot now but will be forgotten next year or sportsperson who's played a single game at a top level and then disappeared, for instance). Wikipedia is not bound by strict rules but by consensuses created by its editors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp, you make some very valid points. I will keep them in mind for next time. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EDWinXP[edit]

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

A7, G4 & G11 but since it's been here for years AfD seems more reasonable than CSD. Bazj (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Was Spam in 2006, Is still spam in 2015, Personally I agree this is a clear A7 but I won't tag it seeing as it's been here for nearly 10 years. –Davey2010^Talk 18:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are much worse articles but this one could also be better and my searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found no good coverage aside from some News.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 21:25, 6 June 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing early because the outcome is obvious. Sandstein 15:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aarthi Aggarwal[edit]

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

The two tabloid sources are mirrors of each other. They only confirm her death, and do not grant her notability in doing so. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, This page was created in 2007 and available in 2 other languages also. - User:varmapak 14:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General comment Pace to her fans, of course, but unfortunately the only notable thing she has done is... died. And even then, the only sources covering it are tabloids- and all they discuss is her death, not her career. As such, this one event cannot constitute her notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs) 15:07, 6 June 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More inclined to delete as there is no significant and notable coverage aside from her recent death and although News found some old news links it's nothing outstanding. There isn't even that much at IMDb and that can often show the level of attention they've gotten (so how much can Wikipedia add to it?). SwisterTwister talk 17:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has acted in lead role in about 20 films and this article is live since 2007.--Anoopkn (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have an opinion about keeping or deleting the article. I just want to know why the article is titled Aarthi Aggarwal (two "g"s) when she is referred to throughout the article, and by all but one of the references, as Aarthi Agarwal (one "g")? If the article is kept this needs to be straightened out. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, indeed, my doctor in Leyton is also called Agarwal. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has been moved to Aarthi Agarwal, with a redirect left behind. — Wylie pedia 02:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless people think her race or ethnic origin make her non-notable, which I would personally find offensive. 174.89.105.239 (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the status of this article (for now), but I don't see how this relates to her race or ethnic origin in any way. Tony Z. Tan (via ALT acct.) · talk 19:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Tan (alt) (talk • contribs) [reply]

Keep. Notable. Djflem (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has acted in about 20 films, and, more important, shared screen with several big stars of Indian South, like Chiranjeevi, for example, Bacus15 (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are references to assert notability.--Racklever (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - this AfD blows. Articles like this one confirm her notability - and as the article clearly states, she was primarily a star in Telugu films; OBVIOUSLY, you should immediately think to look for Telugu sources (and possibly Gujarati). Nominator Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi completely failed WP:BEFORE in creating this nom. To say dying was "the only notable thing she has done" is abhorrent and an indicator that nominator should probably not make any more AfDs until he/she gets a clue. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cretinous comments such as the above do nothing to improve the notability of the article- when I nominated it, it was two mirror-sources, both tabloid. I have in fact, despite nominating it here, also found sourced material and added it. So if you'd actually looked at the article history, before making remarks such as this, people might think you an editor rather than a dumbass. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately, it so happens sometimes that the only coverage they got was for their death. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she notable enough I'm sure you can find more information from the Telugu language Wikipedia.Redsky89 (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She had the female lead role in multiple notable films, and was a major actress in several others. She clearly passes the notability guidelines for actors. I would have to say that I was nearly turned off by some of the arguments to keep above. The fact that the article has existed since 2007 proves nothing. In fact guidelines for inclusion were looser back than then they are now. Also, sharing screen time with a "big name actor" does not make one notable. Lastly I find the attempt to accuse the proposer of racism to be not only a violation of guidelines on assuming good intent but an unjustified injection of race into the discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:NACTOR with multiple significant and even major roles in multiple notable films. Cavarrone 09:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 04:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanspuram[edit]

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

This Page has no Importance and was Made by a user who made another Spam Page. This Page needs to be Deleted as it can contains Vandalism. Denver C. (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sounds like an advertisement and is not encyclopedic — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEditor867 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Blow it up and start over. The article's title indicates a village in Uttar Pradesh, India. However the article is about the village development committee for the village with nothing to support it. If someone wants to rewrite this as a legitimate article, please proceed. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A Google browser search suggests Hanspuram exists but additional searches find nothing good to support it (see Books) and this is important to the save the article. SwisterTwister talk 17:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nizamabad Bus Station[edit]

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

WP:Notable, Fails WP:GNG Earlier similar article was deleted namely Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/N._T._R._Bus_Station via XFD Vin09 (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article considered for deletion ?--Rizwanmahai (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references.Please do not delete this article.--Rizwanmahai (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks to be a significantly-sized bus station. Hardly just a large bus stop like most of those we delete. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's a major and rather big bus station, If it was a tiny thing in the middle of somewhere then yeah but this appears to be a major bus station. –Davey2010^Talk 01:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010:Then, similar article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/N._T._R._Bus_Station should be restored I guess, which is also a major bus station next to Pandit Nehru Bus Station and falls in Andhra Pradesh capital region.--Vin09 (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware it was a major one but that said there wasn't anything on the station, This on the otherhand has a few [22][23][24]. –Davey2010^Talk 12:55, 13 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) 15:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1990–91 Bristol Rovers F.C. season[edit]

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

There is nothing in the article except an infobox. TheEditor867 (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or draftify?) if no one comes forth and offers to write some actual content. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC) The article as it is in not ready for mainspace, it's not a real article, it's a test. I don't really know what's going on in that article, ~~so if someone could just write one sentence in there, then I'll change my !vote.~~I forgot I didn't have this article watchlisted so I didn't see the improvements... — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Keep — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs expanding, not deleting. Notable per WP:NSEASONS. Also why was the article creator not notified about this discussion? Giant Snowman 12:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's clear consensus that seasons articles are appropriate for teams in fully professional leagues. This if the second level of football in England! Nfitz (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable per WP:NSEASONS, nomination goes against WP:PLENTY. Fenix down (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Joseph Rovelli[edit]

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

Non-notable person. I've read through (and copyedited) the article and new edits to it several times and checked the sources and googled his name and book titles -- and I'm just not seeing significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If additional sources or additional proof of notability is not brought forth then it looks like an obvious delete to me. (See the article's talk page, there's been some discussion there.)

The article as it is a major fluff piece right now because, I believe, it's being edited by people with a conflict of interest (yet undeclared).

Rovelli's books are self-published through CreateSpace and the like; and the articles in obscure magazines don't seem to add to notability either. Ordo Templi Orientis and A∴A∴ are notable organizations but Rovelli's involvement with them is only described in primary sources. Notability is not inherited, so his claims of being related to notable topics don't matter. His "Gnostic Church of L.V.X." was founded in 2013, and I don't see how the claim that it is "the first fully-owned and operated Gnostic Church on the continents of the Americas" makes it noteworthy in any way. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This brief mention in Arguing with Angels (published by SUNY Press) is possibly the only piece of coverage in sources that are both independent and reliable. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - unnotable author —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he's quite prolific - see his church's webpage - but nobody else seems to have contributed to, or for all we can tell read, his website or other materials. Under membership on his site, he has two pages, but one is a deadlink, and there is just one other "member." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything out there that would establish notability for Rovelli. The SUNY mention seemed promising, but that's pretty much the only thing out there that's usable. This is a pretty common issue with anything that even remotely smacks of WP:FRINGE: someone can be known in their field, yet never receive coverage in places that Wikipedia would consider usable as a WP:RS. Most of what I found were forum posts, blog entries, and the like- nothing that would show that he passes WP:GNG. I tried looking for sources with the name "Zephyros93" (the handle mentioned in the SUNY book), but couldn't find anything with that either. Other than the one mention in the SUNY book (which isn't enough by itself to show notability) there's nothing out there that's usable. This is required for notability purposes. It's unfortunate that this tends to be the case with fringe topics, but Wikipedia is not here to make up the difference. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this article is important to Those who revere Aliestar Crowley and the A.A. Many like or hate Mr. Rovelli, but in the context of Thelema he is Snhu author of note. You have plenty of occult pages with far less notable authors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermes101 (talk • contribs) — Hermes101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

above vote is by ~~the article creator~~ an editor who has added a lot of content recently, who has not responded to my request to discuss SPA/COI issues here nor to efforts by others to discuss them. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC) (corrected Jytdog (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Actually the article was initially created by User:Angaelicus (another SPA, inactive since 9 May). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 10:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Chisom Umezulike[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BASIC. Several source searches are not providing significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Sources in the article are mostly blogs, webzines and directory listings. There is this article from The Nigerian Voice, which appears to be reliable as per their About us page, but not finding much else to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to me we should create an article on her father. He seems to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless article for father can be started; but as for notability, there probably isn't any with my searches only finding browser which found links such this. Aside from this, I found nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 16:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable model/lawyer/student —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her father, Justice Innocent Umezulike. When she becomes notable in the future, we may consider a stand-alone article. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real notability. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:UPANDCOMING and WP:NOTINHERITED -- she is not yet notable and her father's notability does not shine on his daughter. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 17 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 nominator is recommending the non-deletion action of a merge. A merge discussion can be initiated on an article talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rickmansworth Aquadrome[edit]

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

Suggest merging with Rickmansworth which already covers all that is here in this "stub". — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 07:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is a short but referenced article about an officially designated Local Nature Reserve. It is notable and does not fall within any of the criteria in Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Party for Freedom (Australia)[edit]

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

Unregistered fringe political party that has existed for two years, never contested an election, gotten party registration anywhere, or done much more than run a website and be a few dudes who show up to far-right rallies every now and again. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, I was considering nominating this today too, but never got there so thanks Drover's Wife. This is a splinter of a splinter (sic!) of a very minor party, one that has never achieved elected representation anywhere, one that has never registered or even as far as I can tell attempted to be registered, one that has never endorsed candidates for anything, and one that has a very small amount of coverage to the effect of "these guys were also there" (there are a couple of articles about particular protests they've made, but nothing to establish notability seriously). Frickeg (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unregistered party with a xenophobic bent. . . not exactly unique or notable. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unregistered political party, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete unregistered minor party with no real following. LibStar (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Frickeg: this group doesn't meet WP:ORG Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big Pharma (game)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: Not an article. Advertising. Not notable. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC) Changing to weak delete on grounds of notability. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article we read today is much different from the one nominated for deletion. In particular, the most offensive violations of policy are gone. Although the debate has turned up sources, I'm having trouble. People say that AfD isn't clean up, but it is articles for deletion, not "concepts" for deletion, and if people argue to keep an article because the concept is valid, they're arguing fallaciously, in my opinion. There still aren't iRS of notability given in the article. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, I think I'm leaning more towards delete for now and maybe draft to userspace as my searches only found this (News links) and this (some reviews from Rock Paper Shotgun and PCGamer). It's gotten some coverage but nothing significant. SwisterTwister talk 21:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although it'll probably be remade when it's more notable. --Anar chyte 06:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think notability is an issue for this game anymore. There are serval big Youtube Channels such as NerdCubed, Sips, Northernlion, and EnterElysium had done videos for this game, and had got considerable amounts of views on them.Kdmjf12000 (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those YouTube channels are all examples of self-published sources which in general fail Wikipedia's criteria for reliablity, so they can't be used to establish notability. The1337gamer (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was about to close this as consensus to delete but there is plenty of meaningful coverage in a video game reliable sources custom Google search:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/tag/big-pharma/
http://indiegames.com/2015/06/big_pharma_big_profit.html
http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/pc/news/g54221fc0a3bbf/Big-Pharma-is-a-management-sim-that-could-be-the-next-Theme-Hospital/
http://www.pcgamer.com/big-pharma-announced-is-a-pharmaceutical-management-sim/
http://www.gamershell.com/news_178463.html

There is significant coverage from reliable, independent sources (?) and more than enough material with which to write an article. @Boleyn, Wikimandia, Hithladaeus, SwisterTwister, Anarchyte, Kdmjf12000, and The1337gamer – czar 19:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Czar. Another useful source also: [25] --The1337gamer (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient coverage identified above to establish notability per the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 07:23, 14 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 Deleted under WP:CSD#A7. Glen 08:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Light[edit]

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

This individual doesn't appear to have any self-supporting notability. GLG GLG (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ineffable Music Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Only self-published coverage. Zero depth of coverage in reliable sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found no good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pretty eff-able, I'd say. It has its headquarters in three places and was created to make brands. To quote the waitress in Confederacy of Dunces, "You was on radar?" The article is promotional ("buzz") and obvious sales copy. If there is a discussion of the label in Cashbox or one of the trades, then that might be something, but this looks like a hatrack for all the bands. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited, being affiliated to some notable groups doesn't make them notable. Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin network analyzed by network science[edit]

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

I'm not 100% sure if this should be deleted or not, but feel it's worth at least discussing. Reads like an essay and may contain original research. Not to mention some likely copyright violations on the images used in the article. If some of this info is useful it could likely be merged to Bitcoin. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is WP:OR and can only ever be that —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an essay without any viable hopes of passing WP:GNG, I'm not seeing useful content to merge and it doesn't seem like it would make a good redirect. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I don't really see where this expands on the pre-existing article on Bitcoin. I'd say that it could possibly be merged, but it looks like Winner 42 has already taken a look at this and found nothing worthwhile. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No encyclopaedic topic here, just original research. If there was anything worth merging, or any references worth reusing, then I'd say "go for it" but if there isn't then there is no point agonising over it. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTESSAY. "Bitcoin network" might be notable, but this article is not and will never be the encyclopedic device to hold it. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 10:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There actually is an article on Bitcoin networks already which was previously split from the main article. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the find. Now there is absolutely no redeeming factor to keep this one then. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Essay-like and appears to have some Synthesis in work (several "seems to show" references). Crow^Caw 18:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too much of an essay. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks unsalvageable. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Copa América Group A[edit]

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

Groups don't need their own page Sammanhumagain^t@lk 02:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the previous Copa America articles, the groups have their own pages and they should. The Awesome

15:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - see 2011 Copa América Group A —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — These groups meet the WP:N notability criteria. Dayvid Beckham (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I nominated because in other football tournaments there are no individual pages for each group. The case here is opposite so I have no problem here.Sammanhumagain^t@lk 03:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - major tournament, having separate group pages for these kind of tournaments is standard. Giant Snowman 12:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is this a joke that in other football tournaments there are no individual pages for each group? Looking at other similar competitions UEFA Euro 2012 Group A, 2015 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group A, 2013 Africa Cup of Nations Group B. Sometimes WP:Other stuff exists because it should exist. Nfitz (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the improved article meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Filmsaaz[edit]

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

No real evidence of notability. Created by a SPA, the sources in the article are either primary, unreliable, or are clearly just republished PR pieces ([26]). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, User:Arifjwadder put a notice on the talk page that the consensus was Keep, which it obviously isn't yet. I removed that false info from the page. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 13:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD Filmsaaz

Keep per meeting WP:N. Glamsham, Planet Bollywood, and All Lights Film Magazine all appear suitable and independent of the festival. And while University Film Club, Aligarh Muslim University is not independent of the festival, even if not a source to convey notability, under WP:ABOUTSELF it is acceptable as a source for facts under WP:V. More, a little WP:BEFORE finds this topic spoken about in RS The Times of India [27][28] and The Hindu [29] and Bollywood Life [30] among others.[31][32]. Topic notability is established. Wikipedia will benefit from article's improvement, not its deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced those are anything beyond tabloid sources, with the exception of the Times of India and The Hindu. Also, if you'd actually looked at the Times of India sources, you'd know that the first one is totally useless, as it is not a proper piece, but some sort of generic announcement, and the second one literally is just one name drop right at the end. The Hindu source, meanwhile, is just a press release saying "this is happening". Did you actually look at any of these sources, or did you just see their existence and link to them? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you? Most India media appears to be "tabloid" in style... for briefness, but otherwise fine for reliability. Anyone who wonders about your claim about India media (and yes, not all is perfect by Western standards) and actually clicks the link will see that The Times of India is an authored article dealing with the topic directly and in some detail. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first Times of India source does not contribute anything at all, and the second one mentions Filmsaaz literally once, in the passage of text that says Many of Prayoshala's films like Gaabha, Lipstick and 30p/min have become regulars in the short film festival circuit and have collectively won accolades at the Global Film Fest Noida, Filmsaaz International Film Festival Aligarh, Mumbai International Short Film Festival, Pune Short Film Festival, Satara Short Film Festival, Frames Film Festival and ICE Film Festival. There is no other mention of Filmsaaz, AMU, Aligarh or anything else that may be related to this film festival. It discusses the topic of amateur films getting awards at festivals, yes; but there is no way you can use this source as proving that Filmsaaz is notable if you actually read it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem... I have read policy WP:V, and know that anything contained in the article must be verifiable... but I also know that guide WP:N does not demand that a topic being sourced has to be the sole topic discussed in a source. It also appears you may be using personal opinion to misjudge all the many other available sources. What I determine is that we have here is a brand new article by an inexperienced contributor, and it has has no policy violations. It is somehow unreasonable to expect it to be improved over time and through regular editing? Heck... even suggesting it be moved to draft space is far less WP:BITEY to a newcomer than expecting his work be absolutely perfect the moment it comes into existence. Or do inexperienced newcomers not have a right to contribute??? What efforts have been made to school the noob in our policies and guides? Or do you believe the hat-note on Wikipedia's main page should be removed? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere did I say that the topic being sourced had to be the sole topic being discussed. In fact, claiming that I did would be a lie. What I said was entirely correct - there was a grand total of ONE mention of Filmsaaz, which was right at the end of the article. That constitutes precisely 0 notability whatsoever; there is absolutely NO discussion of Filmsaaz, it is merely a name drop, placing it along various other film festivals but giving nothing on this festival. The fact appears to be that I read the sources, whilst you didn't even look at them properly... And please stop throwing Wikipedia alphabet soup at me; it's a frankly lame attempt at covering up your inability to actually read what I've written. There is a long history of sockpuppetry surrounding this university, and not only do both users involved show clear signs of being the same person, their actions, and some of their edits, are good evidence that they are not new. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

? ? ?. I never said you did... and only clarified that any impression that a source must be solely about the topic was erroneous. Saying that I claimed you said so would be the lie.

Are there any ongoing sockpuppet investigations over this article, or just empty inferences? It would be just as wrong and unhelpful to reasonable discussion were I to "imply" without proof or evidence that there were "a whole slew of anti-Muslim religious bias or sock-puppet issues surrounding the Lukeno94 user account". I will not do that.

Nor would I write that you were bending guides to meet a personal agenda, as that would be WP:ADHOM in an attempt to negatively color this discussion... I would not state that and experienced editors do not do that, do we?

I did ask about evaluations of the multiple other sources available, as being short in format does not automatically mean unreliable or ignorable... and received silence. I asked about any efforts to help a WP:NOOB with his new article and received silence. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Are there any ongoing sockpuppet investigations over this article" yes, yes there are (or rather, there was - it went stale and the CU was inconclusive. The behaviour is clear sock or meat though). Your bullshit "potential conspiracy theory" is irrelevant, as I've followed this topic on and off for a while, and I've seen and helped dismantle a long-term sockfarm in the past, which included a user that couldn't be anything other than linked with the university due to the name and actions (which included, you guessed it - creating and recreating articles on AMU-related student bodies in overtly promotional ways, and on bodies that failed GNG by a mile.) When you have no idea about the history of a topic area, it's a bad idea to start mouthing off in this kind of way at two users who actually have seen what has gone on historically. AGF is not a suicide pact, and thus I am not going to assume good faith about two nigh-on identical spammers who are directly linked to an organization that has a history of spamming. And my AGF with you has also pretty much run out. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FYI I don't think the first Times of India article had the correct link above - that was just a headline. This is the actual article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources both in the article as well as the ones linked here are mostly passing mentions. There is no indication that this film festival actually has any measure of notability even in its locale. The fact that it's obviously created by students of Aliargh Muslim University - a college whose students have a history of sockpuppetry and spamming the site with articles on non-notable subjects relating to their school - also smacks of an attempt at WP:NOTADVERTISING rather than a legitimate article. There are several other such articles being promoted by students of the university at this current time, as this usually tends to happen in short bursts. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of India is an authored article. Unless you are able to prove rather that simply claim without evidence that the TOI author has some affiliation with the festivals or that the article's author is a banned puppet, I politely tell you that you are sadly incorrect, and urge you to refrain form negatively coloring this discussion with WP:ADHOM. We judge an topic by its coverage. Not by a personal opinion or dislike of an institution. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear to any objective observer that my argument itself WAS based on the lack of reliable sources, while the mention of problems from the people involved is secondary. That you actually go one step further and rather pompously claim that I am acting solely on dislike of an institution betrays an odd bias on your part, and the exchange above insinuates that you're the one taking this personally. I don't plan on responding again, but suffice to say that you aren't helping your image by both behaving so rudely and making rather dishonest claims regarding the comments of others. Stating your own point above owuld have been sufficient and more objective. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps you could have simply to stuck your concern over sourcing instead of including an unsupported WP:ADHOM argument smearing the author. Whatever someone writes as a argument is worthy of refuting. Such is AFD. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y Rather than argue here that decent sources exist, I went ahead and addressed issues, tone, and sourcing in the article itself. The poorly constructed article first brought to AFD has been improved somewhat. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This could have better sources but it is acceptable based on the improvement and at least appears better than articles in worse condition. My searches didn't find much aside from News and 1 Highbeam link with nothing at Books and thefreelibrary. SwisterTwister talk 14:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Heymann standard. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus here on whether this article should be kept, merged or deleted. Davewild (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Florencia Sánchez Morales[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed sockpuppet comment Florencia was the subject of Gaby Brimmer: An Autobiography in Three Voices [33] (Florencia being one of the three, along with Gaby and Gaby's mother). Florencia was also the subject of a film Gaby: A True Story, in which she was portrayed by Norma Aleandro, who was nominated for an Academy Award for her performance as Morales. The story of Florencia and Gaby is found in medical journals like this [34] Florencia is also the past president of ADEPAM, an organization for the rights of people with disabilities [35]. 67.55.132.30 (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've informed WikiProject Mexico of this AfD as I feel they may be able to better determine notability. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More inclined to delete as all these articles could have better sourcing and my searches only found one Books result and a few Spanish links here but not that much. If at all, maybe move to either Gabriela Brimmer or the film. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment My search shows a long list of references about her here [36]. When doing searches, try to switch Sánchez and Morales, as she has gone by both, more commonly just referred to as Florencia Morales. also in Spanish Florencia may just be Florence. I'm not sure if she is alive or not, she was still alive as of 2000 when Gaby died. Hopefully if the article stays more info can be found and added about her. HesioneHushabye (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And a more refined search based on the title of the article only shows 50. [37] The issue with your search is that a number of the items that show up are unrelated to the article subject. reddogsix (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Please ignore the above poster, as he is wrong. There are 10 postings on Florencia in each book listed in this search alone [38], and 50 additional hits is plenty to warrant her own article. HesioneHushabye (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gaby Brimmer, while Gaby is notable, I'm not sure how notable her caretaker is, as she is only known because of Gaby and notability is not inherited. The contents of this article will fit nicely into the Gaby article, and in fact, go a long way in taking that article out of stub status. -War wizard90 (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - how exactly do you merge the biographical information for Florencia onto Gabriela Brimmer's ? They are two different people with different backgrounds and stories. HesioneHushabye (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - quite easily, you talk about her involvement in Gaby's story and everything else is irrelevant as notability is not inherited and her only claim to notability is through Gabriela, any background information relevant to that story can be included. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- well I do not agree that her notability is solely because of Gabriela Brimmer, if anything it's the opposite, as Florencia is credited for helping treat Gabriela's cerebral palsy so she could begin to write, and without Florencia's care Gabriela's story would not have become famous. A good reference point would be Annie Sullivan, who is famous for being the lifelong caretaker of Helen Keller, just as Florencia was with Gaby. HesioneHushabye (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – as a standalone. Appears to meet notability given close and integral association with Brimmer, award recipient (national level), and feel that if an actress portraying you gets an Oscar and Globe nod for that role, it is a somewhat significant person.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Canadian High Commissioners to New Zealand. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Reedie[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable. I could only find minor coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to List of Canadian High Commissioners to New Zealand. Per WP:DIPLOMAT there is no presumed notability for Ambassadors (See High Commissioner (Commonwealth)) and they should be redirected to the appropriate list article when one exists. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify and sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:ANYBIO. Jbh ^Talk 13:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to List of Canadian High Commissioners to New Zealand as per Jbhunley (talk · contribs). No content or coverage to justify a stand-alone article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 12:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per DerbyCountyinNZ and Jbhunley NealeFamily (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Diplomats are not entitled to keep unsourced or primary sourced articles — they certainly qualify for Wikipedia articles if they're the subject of enough reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, but they do not get an automatic notability freebie just because they exist. But with the only source here being a deadlinked directory listing on DFAIT's own website, GNG has not been met. Redirect to the list per basically everybody who's commented so far; no prejudice against recreation in the future if real sourcing starts showing up. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kulicke & Soffa Industries[edit]

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

promotional and non-notable " Developed world's fastest, finest pitch wire bonders (8028s, 8028pps)" is a good sample of the contents. Alnost all the references are routine notices of funding . NMASDQ does not imply notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Purely promotional. Wikipedia is not a B2B directory. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Advertising or just a classic business listing. Whatever the company is or is not, the article is promotional. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:ADVERT. LibStar (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McAllen Medical Center[edit]

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

non notable hospital. Content is almost entirely directory information only; minor awards, minor local references. "Primary stroke center", btw, is the lowest category of stroke center. "A Level III trauma center does not have the full availability of specialists" etc. for rankings that really demonstrate non-notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. all the coverage is routine like a patient being taken there for treatment. LibStar (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My inclination is to keep. There IS coverage other than a patient taken there for treatment, for example this - which points out that McAllen is "the regional referral center for the critically ill" and "has some of the most sophisticated medical equipment in the (Rio Grande) Valley". But if the consensus is that it is not notable enough for a standalone article, I would recommend a redirect to Universal Health Services, its parent company. --MelanieN (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

those are remarkably imprecise statements that almost any hospital can assert, and most all of them do, with the appropriate geographic variation. So far from counting them as indicating notability, I count them as indicating promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a hospital with notability. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. you haven't demonstrated how it meets notability. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Libstar, don't cross out people's votes, just your own. A bad argument will be ignored without your interference. Earflaps (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind - apparently I need to scold someone else for striking without explaining here that the editor was a sock. Abotu voting on this topic, undecided for now. Need to look more into the references. Earflaps (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems some recent non-trivial coverage is floating around, like this staff writer piece [39] Earflaps (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that's incredibly local coverage and would fail WP:AUD. LibStar (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sure why it stands out enough to justify an entry. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've looked around and added a couple more sources to the article, including a recent peer-reviewed study ranking the 50 most overpriced hospitals in the United States; of which this ranks 48. I'm inclined to treat hospitals much the way we treat secondary schools, recognizing that large, regional hospitals will nearly always be notable. This one apparently is notable for charging an arm and a leg.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also notice this edit which removed a list of awards the hospital has won. I understand the rationale behind removing the list; it could be considered promotional; but at least a few of those awards were sourced, and many subject-specific notability guidelines such as WP:NMUSIC, WP:NWEB, WP:PROF, WP:NBOOK, WP:NOTFILM, and WP:NSPORT take major awards as evidence of notability. In fact, I now see that one of the sources I added is one of the awards that was removed. So this is additional evidence that the hospital is notable and the article should be kept.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being on a list of the most overpriced hospitals, no matter how reliable the list, does not conceivable constitute notability. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mandaue Foam Industries[edit]

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

Non notable; everything here is essentially advertising & press releases. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is not that much significant and notable coverage, News, listings at Books, a few results at highbeam and nothing at thefreelibrary. They have received a little attention and the article is neat and sourced but enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of independent reliable sources for Mandaue Foam, a famous local brand of home furniture and home decor in the Philippines.--RioHondo (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep as having multiple in depth independent coverage. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion G3, blatant hoax. An imgur meme is not an upcoming film. —C.Fred (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul ball mall call[edit]

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

Probable hoax: the article claims that it is sequel to Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 to be released in 2017, but I found no reliable sources to support the claim at all. WP:CRYSTAL at best. Esquivalience ^t 02:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is absolutely a hoax, and I have tagged it for speedy deletion under CSD G3. KSFT (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh Chander Deveshwar[edit]

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

This may get close to WP:GNG the fact he has received news coverage but all of it is pretty much for the company (which it seems he's been with for over 40 years, according to one link) as shown here, here, here and here. The article's information is all sourced with the current links and the links I found but I don't think he's independently notable, his company position was renewed for another 5 years so he never stepped down BTW. I think the better option if others agree is to redirect to ITC Limited. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 14:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The main problem here is that business publications from India haven't gone online! He is a recipient of the Padma Bhushan, the third highest civilian award in India and that should definitely make him sufficiently notable [40]. He was also ranked among the top 10 CEOs worldwide by the Harvard Business Review in 2013 [41]. —SpacemanSpiff 12:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think there is enough coverage of Deveshwar in some of the sources used in the article ([42][43][44][45][46]) to justify giving him a separate article from ITC Limited; the Padma Bhushan award also helps shows notability, as does his rankings as one of the most important CEOs in India, and even worldwide. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randy W. Martin[edit]

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

Non-notable alternative health practitioner. Sources are limited to the subject's personal website, listings apparently written by him in alternative medicine directories and Amazon reviews of his self-published books. Hut 8.5 06:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 14:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete: Too much reliance on primary sources, also the fact that several sources are poor, such as the Amazon source.~~ SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No neutral sources. Both books are self-published [47], and [48] (look at book details for publisher info). LaMona (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best Rate Referrals[edit]

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

After several source searches, the depth of coverage does not appear to be enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Available sources are mostly press releases. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The company seems to be very aggressive in marketing, and in promotion. The copy in the article is promotional in more than tone as well, and it gives only reasons why the people are exciting, dynamic, wealthy, attractive, etc., and not reasons why the company is spoken-of as a company. The nearest would be the roundups of business practices, and those seem to be based solely on growth. So, yeah, just fails the notability. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there doesn't seem to be solid and good coverage with searches only finding this,this and this (one press release). SwisterTwister talk 21:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 07:03, 13 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xennial[edit]

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

Usage appears to sparse to meet WP:NEO. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author. I just noticed that "Generation Catalano" already exists which Xennial is another term for. Should these instead be combined?CrescentHawk (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for the article to be deleted. The terms "Generation Catalano" and "Xennial" are not commonly used; the same can be said for Generation Jones. "Xennial" is not a term that is quoted from a highly reputable source such as a major newspaper or magazine, and it hasn't caught on with the general public. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using Generation Jones as a precedent , its been an established entry for over a decade here. Moreover, the concept of the sub generation group in question was also noted by Slate, a subsidiary of the Washington Post. (I'm more interested in the concept than the term used, hence a vote for *Merge CrescentHawk (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that the term was referenced by the Huffington Post as of today as well. CrescentHawk (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Generation Catalano. [49] is the only cited source to use the word "Xennial" more than once and that's not enough to be notable. Generation Catalano seems to be notable and any unique content from Xennial can be integrated there. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable and barely used WP:Neologism, the Huffington Post source is a blog entry, and a copy of the same blog post published 4 days earlier at mashable.com (source # 1). The word is already mentioned at Generation Catalano, no need to merge anything. Kraxler (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is not notable. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically just a made-up word, not notable, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disobedient (album)[edit]

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

Not notable. There is a lack of coverage about this album in independent reliable sources. No reviews, charting, awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found some reviews... Just wondering if they might be considered. I'm guessing most alternative music isn't going to get much coverage in the mainstream. [50], [51], [52], [53], in Australian site, Czech Republic site, [54] —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is the band's most recent album. There are sources that can be added to the article already and in time there will be more.--MASHAUNIX 17:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - It's reliably-sourced. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC) (Striking comment from a banned sockpuppet. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go-cs[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, confirmed after multiple source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this software. Article was created by an SPA with a name similar to the developer, so likely promotional. Dialectric (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as recently released software with no noticeable coverage aside from results for an apparently different GOCS. SwisterTwister talk 21:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete/snow Gaijin42 (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the author of go-cs and my impression was that Wikipedia welcomes software developers to list their software especially when it is Open Source. The coverage in Wikipedia (which is itself an Open Source project) help us Open Source developers. Go-cs is a recent project, but already adopted in a few companies that I know about. It is one of the official Golang projects listed at https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/Projects and https://code.google.com/p/go-wiki/wiki/Projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy.kosela (talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. The votes have divided almost equally, but redirect is in the policy, and it is also preferable to deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wonmyung Elementary School[edit]

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

Schools are not inherently notable; an article on such must actually provide sources to show that it meets either WP:ORG or WP:GNG. This one does neither. Tarc (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A relatively recent (1989) elementary school in a large city. No claims to notability made. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable elementary school. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL and WP:ORG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: no [non-primary] sources are included in the article and I can't find any either. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (see below) — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 07:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --do ncr am 18:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails NSCHOOL. –Davey2010^Talk 18:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per below - Not sure how I missed that but hey ho . –Davey2010^Talk 01:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above. Neutrality^talk 22:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Seocho District, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Seocho District, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable elementary school. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notability criteria are guidelines and as such it is pefectly acceptable to interpret them with common sense. However, 'redirect' is an official alternative to deletion that is anchored in policy. Being non-toxic, school articles fall squarely in that area of policy and 'redirect' for non notable mainstream schools has been fully established by consencus through precedent as evidenced by hundreds, if not thousands, of redirected school articles. The oppose votes here, especially those from Hithladaeus, Joseph2302, Bilorv and Heyyouoverthere may be simply due to the fact that they are not aware of the standard practice that is documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's true enough in my case. I personally don't really see much point in redirecting the article but since WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES recommends it, I'll go with it. I feel a bit like I'm just switching sides to the team that looks like they're going to win, but oh well. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 07:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a special problem with that, except that it was not clear, from the article, at least to me, what the parent reference would be. If other people have solved it, that's fine. I do demur from the consensus, but consensus holds. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:05, 13 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.