Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 October	21 October >

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) 21:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Starfall[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing, just a batch of kayfabe interviews and promotional pages. PROD removed by article creator. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO as the nominator states. Fails GNG without significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. The references in the article are generally low quality. RS coverage found in independent searches consists of passing mentions. Even if you count Creative Loafing as reliable, it's not enough. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cause as Gene93k said she's not notable. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hullaballoo's analysis. Cavarrone 07:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Saint-Gobain. merge away Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saint-Gobain Gyproc India[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable and I'm not sure if this should be merged or simply deleted altogether and the best my searches found were this, this, this and this. Pinging Arjayay, Mean as custard and The Blade of the Northern Lights. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I say merge it with the parent company's article, but get rid of the unreferenced promotional content. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Saint-Gobain. Maduwanwela (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saint-Gobain. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben 10 (2017)[edit]

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

A reboot to a show with no refs listed and does not have any info yet-falls under too soon as well. Wgolf (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I say delete because Wikipedia is no crystal ball. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Not So Dumb Blond: Actually, under WP:CRYSTAL we CAN speak of forward looking topics in articles just so long as we do not engage in unsourced speculation or original research. See WP:FUT OKAY. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for now as being TOO SOON until it actually begins filming. But because the project is sourcable as in-the-works,[1][2][3][4]et.al. it CAN be spoken of and sourced in the Ben 10 article even if not in an article if its own. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Doesn't merit a standalone article for the subject at the moment per WP:TOOSOON. A brief mention in the Ben 10 article would be helpful. Jim Carter 08:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Delete per above, Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply too soon. SwisterTwister talk 02:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone above me - Way TOOSOON .–Davey2010^Talk 01:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville notes homeschool music association[edit]

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

Does not meet notability. Charlie the Pig (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I say delete it because there's no references, and the only thing hinting at notability I saw about it at Google was a local newspaper mentioning it. A lot of things get mentioned in the newspaper, that doesn't make them notable for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not So Dumb Blond (talk • contribs) 01:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no obvious signs of better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 01:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, not even a credible assertion of notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searches did not turn up anything to show they pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Craig-Wood[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable? as the best my searches instantly found was this, this and this and with the author being named "Khcw77", this suggests it may've been the subject and there's been no improvement since starting in April 2008. Pinging Missvain, Thoughtfortheday, Captain Fishy and Escape Orbit. SwisterTwister talk 22:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say weak keep on this. The fact that the nominator would even bring up that it might be notable and improvable raises a red flag, then you have the fact that it does have decent references establishing notability. Again, I don't like that this may have been an autobiography, and it does kind of read like a promotional resume, but that's not enough for me to say delete. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is too promotional, but perhaps a scaled-down version would be worth keeping. weak keep Thoughtfortheday (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I agree with what's been said above; the article needs a bit of a rewrite. There's no doubt it started as an autobiography (see the talk page) but the subject does satisfy WP:GNG and as such is both notable and improvable. Note to closing admin: I happen to know the subject personally (although we haven't met for 15 or so years!) so feel free to disregard my opinion if you feel that constitutes a COI. Waggers TALK 14:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per above - The article isn't good but it's not that bad either, Anyway can't be arsed to link every single news sources but Google brings up alot of stuff, Notability's there so keep. –Davey2010^Talk 01:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This seemed like a good candidate for improvement. I've gone through and added citeable sources and gotten rid of some of the less important detail. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yes, the article can be improved, but she's been surveys in media, thus passing WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010^Talk 01:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Technology Partners[edit]

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

Links this, this, this and this all suggest this has gotten coverage and one of the browser links here particularly mentions this was one of John Donovan's most famous companies and I was actually going to boldly redirect this to his article but I'm not sure if this can be better improved or what because the current version would certainly need it (this article actually began in June 2006 as a redirect to Novell where it is currently mentioned as well at John J. Donovan's own article). Pinging Mean as custard, Chase me ladies, I'm the Calvary, Iliasbeshimov, Rich Farmbrough, Macrakis and Dreamyshade. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This could be merged into Novell or kept separate. I don't feel strongly either way, but the content should be kept. It certainly doesn't lack for trade press coverage. --Macrakis (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep companies that get bought up tend to loose their history if the articles are merged. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I'm with the others on this. This is a keeper because it's been noted in reliable sources and therefore meets the notability standards for inclusion. Sorry I keep voting against you SwisterTwister, it just seems to be the luck of the draw tonight, it's not personal though. :-) Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, this looks like a notable and complex enough topic that this article should be expanded instead of merged. In August some information was removed that actually looks verifiable, saying that it was spun off from Novell in 2008 and became part of a different company in 2014. Here's one potential source for that information and another. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep - notable and have a place in history. Obvious ties to novell. DangerDogWest (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge F. Ramos[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable because despite the article appearing acceptable at first time, there are still questionable and unsupported claims and my searches (News, Books, browser and Highbeam) also found nothing better than this. Pinging Ged UK, Btnikk, Blanchardb and Tpbradbury and this article from June 2009 would certainly need better improvement if kept. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I say keep the article but delete all of the unreferenced stuff tagged with "citation needed". Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even then he is still questionably notable, Not So Dumb Blond. SwisterTwister talk 01:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I declined this for A7, which is a lower threshold than the GNG. I can't remember the detail, but looking at the page as it was then, it claims he won gold medals at what seemed to be a significant tournament, so I imagine it was for that. Ged UK 08:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability criteria for martial artists or WP:GNG If he had won a Gold medal at the the World Taekwondo Championships in 2007 and 2009 as claimed that would be different but in both those events he is not listed as a medal winner nor is there a medal winning African team. Subsequently all other uncited claims are suspect - none of which provide notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article claims he coached a world champion, not that he was one.Mdtemp (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is the first African Master to achieve two gold medals with an African team at two consecutives Taekwondo world championships (Copenhagen 2009 and Beijing 2007). is not at all clear but even so which team.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MANOTE. Notability is not inherited from a student. No supporting evidence to support claims of being a champion fighter. In fact, he's not listed at all at taekwondodata.com under fighters or coaches. Mdtemp (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability claims seem to be based on the success of one of his students and being inducted into a taekwondo hall of fame. However, notability is not inherited and martial arts halls of fame are not considered to show notability. My search found no sources showing that he ever competed at the highest level. Papaursa (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raju Sethi[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was this, this, this and this and despite the article saying the company is "the most successful South Asian television entertainment program in North America" but not having a current Wikipedia article questions its weight and depth and this current article has not changed much since starting in September 2007. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's this source about the subject, but it doesn't appear that the claim of notability is supported by reliable sources. Alansohn (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I say delete because the article is one sentence long and the only source appears to be a primary source. It's not quite A1 under CSD but not far from it. There's a delete vote for you SwisterTwister. ;-) Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches turned up nothing to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Person not notable as claimed. Page appears more to be promotional than encyclopedic in nature. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This page was previously deleted on 23 Apr 2006 also. Just FYI. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Jun Rowley[edit]

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

Questionably notable as the best I found was nothing convincingly better here, here, here and here and this hasn't changed much since starting in September 2011. Pinging tagger Cameron Scott and author Davemendez. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as promo for an individual who may one day be notable, but is not notable now. TOO SOON at minimum. Quis separabit? 19:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:UPANDCOMING? Bearian (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There was a nice piece at FastWeb, which might point to it being WP:TOOSOON, but other than that, just trivial mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010^Talk 01:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Shirahama[edit]

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

No indication of individual notability, besides being part of a seven-piece boyband in Japan. No solo releases or acting roles of note. See WP:MUSIC and WP:NACTOR Karst (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it with the band's article. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Generations from Exile Tribe. Not seeing sufficient evidence of independent notability. --DAJF (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Shirahama has received significant coverage in pretty much all the major entertainment press outlets in Japan. Here are just some pieces that have his name in the title of the article: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], etc. Part of his fame is due to his scandal with Minami Minegishi, part of it is due to his being the younger brother of the model Loveli, but now most of it is due to him being the leader of a band with a number one single. The press treats him as the leader and he receives much coverage about him as a single person. It is debatable whether he passes WP:MUSIC or WP:NACTOR, but he easily passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, they are quite useful. Especially if the article should be redirected and inserted into the main page. There is currently no mention of any scandal? This would indeed add notability. Something needs to be added otherwise it will simply go to a redirect of an AfD again. Karst (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some English sources on Shirahama's role in the scandal, since it was reported worldwide (see the Minegishi article): [22], [23], etc., though not all of them are as reliable as the major news sources I cited from the Japanese press. If the conclusion of this AfD is Keep, I will try to add some of this to the article (I always try to do that after saving an article on AfD, though help from others is always welcome!). Michitaro (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Michitaro has already done the hard work, so all I can add is that his description of those sources is accurate. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as being a member of the two groups with sourcing to support it may make this keepable. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bloxers[edit]

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

The title of the article is a commercial protologism; there is insufficient evidence yet of notability. (The article was prodded shortly after creation, but the prod message was removed.) --Lambiam 21:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Boxers - Hmmm. I've been keeping an eye on this article out of curiosity. Not surprised it came to AFD. There was a lot of international media flurry in July 2015. At least two French articles - [24], [25]; Italian [26], Indonesian [27], and Dutch [28], alongside dozens of English language articles. So there was definitely a flurry of international interest in mid-July, but it is clearly too soon and pretty much equivalent to a single event. Enough for a mention in Boxers at this point, but let's see if they're still getting coverage a year or so later. For now, merge and if they continue the way they've started, then an article sounds like a good idea, but for now - TOO SOON. Mabalu (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The media attention echoed the info in their press kit and was clearly due to the curiosity value, but, as far as I can tell, the product is not in production. You can "preorder" one via their website for $29.99, but the Indiegogo campaign ended with 12% of its goal and only 81 backers, so there is room for doubt that this will ever enter production. --Lambiam 10:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure WP:ADVERT for a product never put into production with the usual Kickstarter-like buzzspeak to distract that a mainstream product like this is likely already on the market. Nate • (chatter) 15:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I'm not seeing much better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 20:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too much of an advertisement. Although it has made headlines on Google News, they are mainly clickbait. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. At best WP:TOOSOON, and definitely too promotional. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) sst✈^discuss 15:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tolly Burkan[edit]

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

A recent set of back-and-forth mini edit wars have made me look a bit deeper into the subject and the sources available for this article. In all of the online sources (and from what little I have seen of the offline sources) Burkan commands no significant coverage. 95% of the coverage is mentioning him as starting the corporate-training firewalking business and offering little else. I still cannot find one of the offline sources listed on the page, but the others are in a similar vein to the online sources. Burkan seems to have done little to attract public attention, and while he may be well-known, he does not appear to meet the notability criteria for Wikipedia. I am, however, willing to be convinced otherwise, should more appropriate sources be revealed. Primefac (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel almost sorry that abuse (conflict of interest, and neutrality) of the page has directly lead to this -- but the abuse seems to point out an underlying issue. A strict reading of Notability seems to indicate this subject is not notable enough for inclusion. Arbalest Mike (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. -- Kethrus |talk to me 20:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not being notable. Tayste (edits) 20:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One can be respected and notable in their field without being notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. This appears to be the case here. There are references, but those are passing mentions or endorsements of businesses. A teacher does not inherit the notability of one of their students; i.e. the talk page claim of "I taught Tony Robbins!" There are google hits, but mostly for speaking engagements and public appearances for commercial ventures in a specific field. What we don't see is independent, third party sources writing about the subject, and that is what establishes encyclopedic notability. On that basis, the subject fails WP:GNG. Oh, and someone should check the talk page, as there is a post claiming to be the subject, with personal contact details and such that should perhaps be REVDEL'ed Scr★pIron^IV 15:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a rather lengthy post from Burkan posted on this AFD's talk page. If Mr. Burkan reads this, I would like his honest opinion on whether those articles specifically talk about him, or simply mention him as the instructor of a course/ideology/etc. Primefac (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I hate split conversations, I have the response requested from Mr. Burkan on my own talk page. Primefac (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much as I hate to say it, I really do not believe we should take the subject's word for his own notability. This individual has played with sockpuppets and IP's to edit war content into this article, and is clearly biased do to his WP:COI. I am not averse to a re-examination of the sources, but I would not blithely take his word for it. I don't doubt for a moment that he is a major contributor to the (sport?)/(event?) of firewalking, but there is nothing that conveys notability beyond it. At best, the minimal content in this article should be merged into the firewalking article. Scr★pIron^IV 19:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, hence this nomination. I can't find any sources, and despite claims of them existing I still have yet to actually see any. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That lengthy post has been pasted all over the place, verbatim. Forms of it appear as a fodder in edit wars on other's talk pages from some time ago.Arbalest Mike (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now perhaps until a better article can be made as the current sources show some hope but maybe not enough. Pinging past users Black Kite, DGG, Altenmann, MastCell, Arbalest Mike and Alansohn. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. I would like to question the due diligence of voters-deleters. A quick google search immediately revealed two quite reputable sources with significant coverage:
- National Geographic
- full 3 pages in a book on firewalking, Princeton University Press, no less.

I see the deadline is up already, but IMO the article is salvageable. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[ABC Science whatever it is for the Aussies
Discovery Channel
Edwards, Emily D. “Firewalking: A Contemporary Ritual and Transformation.” TDR 42 (1998): 98-114. -- Independent analysis of Burkan's seminars
Mythbusters - Firewalking 101
"The Encyclopedia of Religious Phenomena"

Conclusion. And I went only thru 10 first page of google hits. Whoever the alleged POV pushers for Burkan are, they were doing an extremely sloppy work with the article. The person is notable beyond any doubt in my rather skeptical mind. The statement "Burkan seems to have done little to attract public attention" is provably incorrect, as you see from my very limited cross-section: even Mythfreakingbusters had fun with him - if this does not count for public attention, then I don't know what else you want (Kardashian firewalking naked?). - üser:Altenmann >t 06:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. to my considerable surprise, he does seem to be a notable in his special version of spirituality. I've read some of the academic work -- the Princeton University Press book and the discussion in the article from TDR/The Drama Review (a MIT Press journal), is sufficient to show that, toghether with the National Geographic and the rest. These are more than mentions--he seems a prominent representative of his movement, and the coverage makes him notable. The other sources he mentions might add to ti--I haven;t checked them, because I consider that what I did check shows notability. I have said many times that I consider the GNG subject to misuse, but it does have a place sometimes when dealing with unfamiliar subjects of subjects that people here are not accustomed to take seriously. Primefac, I think the evidence answers your rationale of "Burkan seems to have done little to attract public attention, and while he may be well-known..."-- he has attracted a good deal of public attention. Anyway, a person can not be well known without having attracted public attention. You probably meant "public attention in reliable sources that we consider suitable for showing notability" But these sources are unquestionably reliable. I'm not happy with articles showing this degree of COI,but it does genuinely add to the encycopedia . DGG ( talk ) 10:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the new sources found by Altenmann. I know that AFD is NOTCLEANUP but I honestly couldn't find anything more than mentions, which seemed odd considering his history. The new sources definitely demonstrate notability and should be added into the article. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010^Talk 01:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TNCC[edit]

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

There is only one accessible article linked to this disambiguation page Rob van vee 19:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added a few more entries that turned up with a search. Praemonitus (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This was a redirect for the past five years. It got nominated for deletion about one hour after another user converted it to a disambiguation page with one blue link and one red link. I would have suggested reverting to the original redirect, but due to the additional blue links added by User:Praemonitus it should now be kept. -- Zyxw (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Were other entries looked for before nomination? Either way, this is now a valid dab. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: now a valid dab page. PamD 06:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Freeman[edit]

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

non notable musician. Appears to have won a local music award but nothing significant. noq (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no evidence of significant musical notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to fail WP:NMUSICIAN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. speedied as G4 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 16:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete G4 by Bishonen (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FocusEconomics[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable organization. Their work is cited by a number of publications, but there is almost no depth of coverage as required by WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 16:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For context, there is a group of editors with an apparent COI editing articles related to this company and adding links to its website. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#FocusEconomics. Deli nk (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see no obvious improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 17:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no idication of significance, clearly a promotional article.TheLongTone (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied. I've speedied the article since it was recreated after being deleted per the WP:PROD process, and is still entirely self-sourced. I'm considering blocking those SPAs as not being here to create an encyclopedia, but purely for promotion. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you. I would support blocking for NOTHERE, undisclosed paid editing, and/or sock puppetry. - Mr X 14:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Job skirt[edit]

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

Have done a search for sources, but can't find anything beyond this article to show that a job skirt is a thing. Although technically it's well-written and appropriately toned, it does seem a bit How To and subjective/personal opinion. The searches I did by phrase pulled up a LOT of hits for "job. Skirt" (where a sentence ends with "job" and skirt is the first word in the following sentence). I looked up a related phrase I KNEW was definitely a "thing", interview suit, and see it ended up being redirected to Suit (clothing). Mabalu (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article makes sense and I can totally see this as notable, but no sources to back that up. Maybe wait till other publications cover this. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you about this - it sounds good, and sounds as if it ought to be notable, but there are zero sources. Similarly I don't see anything article-wise for Job shirt, Job suit, or even Office dress/Office dress code, which would seem to be the logical home for something like this if it were notable. Plus presumably a job skirt would vary depending on the job! Mabalu (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a neologism. A "job skirt" is just Business casual. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Eman235/talk 13:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Electric Co., Ltd.[edit]

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

This is another case of obvious speedy and PROD but considering it has existed since March 2009 after a SPA started it and with almost no activity since then, a nomination is better and my searches simply found nothing better than a few business listings at Books. Wow, what an excellent article! SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is so little here, and what there is is largely nonsensical mistranslation. (How can a company in Tokyo "do Chapter 11"?) Imaginatorium (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, this was a publicly traded company, with its stock listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange ([29]--it was listed in the First Section, which is only for large corporations), the Japanese equivalent of the NYSE. It's no mom and pop company. As WP:LISTED says, "There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above." In fact, it adds: "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." That said, there is sufficient independent coverage out there to pass notability criteria: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], etc. What makes it a bit harder to find articles is that the company has changed its name to Helios Techno Holding Co., Ltd., which has also taken over its slot on the TSE (number 6927). Thus more recent coverage tends to be about that company, not about Phoenix ([37], [38], [39], [40], [41], etc.; in English: [42], [43], etc.). Phoenix now exists as a subsidiary and a brand name. Not only does the article need to be updated, but perhaps it might be best to change the name of the article. The Japanese Wikipedia has articles on both companies, but the Helios article (ja:ヘリオス_テクノ_ホールディング), basically treats it as a continuation of Phoenix. Anyway, this easily passes WP:CORP. Michitaro (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Michitaro, however it needs a whole lot of work. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Michitaro and Mosaic. But yeah, this article needs tremendous work. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft or user space. Yes, I believe it's notable, but Michitaro's work should have gone into the actual article. That thing is an insult to our readers in its current state, basically nonsense. Sandstein 21:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having previously added material to an article during an AfD only to see it deleted, I usually wait until the AfD has concluded before I add it. If you are concerned about the need for it to be added now, you are free to do so yourself. Michitaro (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deltora Quest 2. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Shadowlands[edit]

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

A bit difficult to search for since "Shadowlands" is a fictional name that's commonly used, but I'm not turning up references that make this title appear to be notable per WP:NBOOKS. Mikeblas (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify - The book does exist and a number of other articles point to it. The book does exist as part of what appears to be a WP:N series. - Pmedema (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question. What does "Stubify" mean? -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:STUBIFY - sorry for not linking that... - Pmedema (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author and or simply keep as there's nothing to vehemently suggest deleting. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to the series page - There is no clear sense that anything beyond the plot summary as part of the larger scope of the series, Sadads (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Deltora Quest (series) or Deltora Quest 2. Individual books do not inherit notability from the series themselves being notable, especially when you have a series that is known for having a fairly large amount of books, which the Deltora Quest series as a whole does. This could redirect to the specific Deltora Quest 2, however I note that this page lacks coverage in reliable sources to show where this trilogy is specifically notable outside of the main series. Just as individual books do not inherit notability, the trilogies or sagas that occur within long running series also do not inherit notability and the main reason for the trilogy page to have an article would be to decrease the load from the main series page, although I think that this information could mostly be summed up fairly well. However that's not the focus of this AfD, the specific book is and I can find nothing to show that this individual book has received any coverage in independent or reliable sources per WP:RS. This is pretty common when you have series with a large amount of books because there's usually just too many for most outlets to review. It can happen, but it's usually with overwhelmingly notable series like Diary of a Wimpy Kid where the release of the books are a major event. Chapter books like Deltora Quest usually get released with little fanfare because they're released at such a breakneck pace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporate into Deltora Quest 2. I'm not normally one who likes to see pages deleted for any reason but I'd make an exception in this case. A check of the series page indicates there is more plot summary information listed there than on this page. I agree that the three books in the series were released in quick succession all around the novella or short-novel length. In fact Austlit lists a later publication of the three books in the one volume in 2007, totaling 373pp, which would lead you to believe that is their natural state. So I'd suggest taking the extra information from this page and adding to the series article. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 21:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Babette Bensoussan[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable and although I found links at News, Books, browser, Highbeam and Scholar, there's nothing to suggest obvious immediate improvement. Pinging the only still active users DGG and Deb. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional and badly sourced. Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Web searches just turn up more promotion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd call this borderline promotional and a probable COI. Deb (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Deb: On what basis do you suppose it to be a CoI? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Firstly, the promotional wording, and second, the original creator's other contributions. I'm not singling out any individual though. Deb (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few books have holdings in the several hundreds, but that's not remarkable for the "help" sector of publishing. Article seems WP:PROMOTION. Agricola44 (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep she doesn't have to be remarkable, just notable. Holdings of 434, 409 (and a Chinese translation) & 367 are quite significant, these 3 from significant publishers. Non notable books in this field have about 100 each, maybe 200. The promotionalism can be fixed rather quickly; I just did it. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If she's notable as an author, there's no need for her consulting firm to be mentioned in the second sentence.Deb (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This is a difficult one as there is a lot of mirrored reporting. She is in business promotion so press clearly seems to be promotional, but, she is notable. She has been recognized twice by her industry's International Board. 1996 Fellow and 2006 Meritorious. Yes, I realize those are primary sources, but the only way to get around whether they are all mirrors is to go to the primary source in this case. The Meritorious entry shows that it is not a rote annual award, but is given only when the board feels service is exemplary, thus to my mind it carries heavier weight than an annual award that must have a recipient. As DGG pointed out, it is a relatively small field and yet, she has numerous citations by scholars of her work [44] stretching over several decades. SusunW (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's sound arguments. If we're going to start deleting notable people to punish them for self-promotion, could we please start with those embarassments-to-the-human-species Kardashians and work out way down? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above, and meets WP:ANYBIO having "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" of Competitive intelligence. Here are some of the numerous ocurrences of her being acknowledged/used as a source: [45] -Competitive Intelligence in The Information Management Journal by Sue Myburgh - "Craig Fleischer and Babette Bensoussan’s FAROUT criteria are useful in interpreting these models:", [46] -Favorite CI Analytic Tools that Deliver Value presented to the 2012 SLA Annual Conference - her books appear in other references section, [47] -Using Business Intelligence to Discover New Market Opportunities in the Journal of Competitive Intelligence and Management by Janice Frates & Seena Sharp - "The authors appreciate the thoughtful peer review and insightful comments by Babette Bensoussan and Dr. Judith Connell on a draft of this paper." Her awards also help her notability (I have moved them in an awards section in the article). Coolabahapple (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, Coolabahapple, et al. There is enough to show she passes WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Ravn[edit]

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

Not much evidence of notability; couldn't find much on web beyond facebook and pinterest. valereee (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valereee. She's certainly one of the most notable authors in Denmark at the moment. The problem is you are searching in English-language sources. If you search in Danish you will find many references in the large-circulation national newspapers such as Berlingske and Politiken. For example:

Roman: Olga Ravn romandebuterer talentfuldt, men lidt uforløst
Tove Ditlevsen anno 2012
Olga Ravn slipper raseriet løs med et besættende sprogligt overskud
Olga Ravn: At skrive er en måde at tænke på

She also received a very positive introduction in the English-language Danish Literary Magazine (Autumn 2013). See the write-up on Page 28 here

I could give you many, many more citations in Danish if you cannot find them yourself. I only devoted a short article to Olga Ravn at this stage but it could well be expanded. I am up to my neck with an editathon on women architects at the moment but I can see there's quite a bit more we could add to the article on Ravn.--Ipigott (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ipigott I'm totally willing to take your word for it; it might be good to include these other references when you've unburied yourself? :) I did go to the two currently listed and they looked like simple listings of writers rather than evidence of notability. valereee (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Thanks for your quick response. I've already added a snippet and will get back to it later. The problem is you cannot cover all these people in great detail from the word go.--Ipigott (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ipigott No deadlines. :D valereee (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added English-language refs and fleshed out the presentation. Yoninah (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is made out. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - as above Victuallers (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - clearly notable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements made. The subject passes WP:ANYBIO as there is coverage in English as well as in Danish. Jim Carter 10:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow, that's turned into a nice little article overnight. I stand corrected. valereee (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aer Lingus Flight 485[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS Proded this a such, but template removed. TheLongTone (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:AIRCRASH: The accident/incident was fatal to humans which meets the criteria under the 'Aircraft articles' section. Commyguy (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2015 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commyguy (talk • contribs)
Delete - people die on aircraft fairly regularly. There was no plane crash or any issue whatsoever to do with the plane and WP:AIRCRASH in no way applies. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Мандичка, but there is merit in a list of on-board fatalities or similar.--Petebutt (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is such a list. People die all the time, including on airplanes, at airports, on trains, etc. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People die during air flights more often than most people think, and dying inflight is not itself enough to justify an article here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable event. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really notable and wikipedia is not a newspaper. MilborneOne (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bloke dies on plane after biting someone. No crash. No accident even. Not notable. If it's later found that he was a zombie and this is the beginning of the apocalypse then I may change my opinion. However, it appears more likely that he was a drug courier and the packets burst in his stomach. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Not notable event....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Fails GNG. sst✈^discuss 16:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megaworld Corporation[edit]

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

The only external references concern a spat with Donald Trump over a name. Hardly notability. Fails WP:GNG. Hariboneagle927 notes in the edit history "Lack of credible references does not mean the company isn't notable" - well, yes it does. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the biggest real estate companies in the Philippines. Did the nominator even bother to google and check articles that link to it WP:BEFORE nominating this article? It needs improvement and update though, particularly its recent developments in Resorts World Manila, the country's first integrated casino resort, Eastwood City, pioneer in Philippine BPO centers, other developments in Bonifacio Global City, Clark Freeport Zone, Mactan and Iloilo Business Park.--RioHondo (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep likely as "Megaworld Corporation Philippines" found several links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam. Pinging Hell in a Bucket, Hariboneagle927 and author TheCoffee. SwisterTwister talk 17:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, likely a large amount of coverage is in Tagalog. I think a stub is appropriate to keep as it is not overly spammy. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by lack of "credible references", I meant the lack of in-line third-party citation at that particular moment of time (and apparently still true). Also in the same edit summary, I mentioned that the company is listed in the country's primary stock market, the Philippine Stock Exchange. Receive coverage on national newspapers such as The Philippine Star, Manila Standard, and Inquirer (sources not primarily discussing the projects of the company). At least notable in the national level.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Listed on the Philippine Stock Exchange, and both it and its many, many infrastructure projects have been covered in the media. @Velella:, perhaps you would have been able to see more coverage if you searched for just "Megaworld" or "Megaworld Philippines". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -There is an issue here which directly relates to notability as defined in Wikipedia. It is easy to find references to the buildings constructed and equally easy to find references that 'mention' Megaworld, but finding references that convey notability on the company is a very different thing. Being listed on a stock exchange does not convey automatic notability. I looked but could't see notability, hence the nomination. So far nobody else seems to have found substantive and robust source. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought it's a given that a builder or developer of some of the country's biggest megaprojects for which we have wikiarticles on is also notable. But this company's notability from the president of the Philippines himself: 1.--RioHondo (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7 -- Kethrus |talk to me 09:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extranewsbd24.com[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability guideline (WP:GNG). Nominated for speedy deletion but am unsure if being "among the top websites" is a claim to notability (although it's previously been deleted per A7). There are no news/newspapers/books relating to this site and it's barely on Google (contradicting it being "among the top websites"). -- Kethrus |talk to me 11:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Barely founded this year. Charlie the Pig (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Aldea (footballer)[edit]

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

This is the second AfD. The first one ended with the resolution to delete, as the player has not played in any pro league. The article was recreated with next-to-the same content. I requested speedy deletion, but the sysop declined as he thought there is a claim that he plays a fully pro league. It is not the case, as I shall restate. As the previous AfD has shown, the League Cup is not considered a fully-pro league, but rather a second-tier friendly game competition. After playing one match for Steaua in this League Cup, Aldea has moved to Fortuna and Ceahlăul, both second-league (not fully pro) clubs. - Andrei (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - My opinion from the first AfD still stands: Since the winners of this "league cup" are not granted entry into the next season's Europa League, I am inclined to consider this more of a friendly competition, particularly given its sporadic timing in terms of the various rounds indicating it is meant to fit in around the pre-existing football calendar in Romania rather than be a true part of it. As such, even though the source in the article shows he played in a match between two fully professional teams, I am not convinced this competition carries that much weight. Maybe in time it will but for now, I do not think this player quite passes WP:NFOOTY let alone GNG.

~~Additionally as he is now in a non-FPL, there is little likelihood of him satisfying NFOOTY in the short term.~~Fenix down (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like he has played in an FPL, although the issues with Soccerway's referencing of the Romanian top flight and the errors in the article make it difficult to1 see this. Fenix down (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed it seems so. However, looking for the reports on each of those five matches in the Romanian, Aldea is not mentioned for anything. He only appears in the list of players. I find nothing verifiable that can be written about him.- Andrei (talk) 09:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion - You both make a big confusion because he played in a fully professional league, 5 games in the season 2014–15 Liga I for Ceahlăul Piatra Neamț, and after that they relegated in Liga II. - Narcis90 (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has not played in Liga I, meaning the article meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 15:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - made his professional debut coming on in the 68th minutes in a February 23, 2015 Liga I match against CFR Cluj only 39 days after the previous AFD ended. The article should have been restored at that time. I don't see the sense of deleting now, and I'm not sure why User:Andrei Stroe has not withdrawn this nomination and maintains there is no evidence that he played. Nfitz (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I maintain is that there is no coverage from multiple independent reliable sources that describes the subject in detail. Although I accept Fenix down's argument that he has technically played 5 matches in the first division, I also point out that his evolution in those matches has mostly gone unnoticed.- Andrei (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yambla[edit]

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

Zero evidence of notability. The refs are very minor product awards, written as press releases. DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as "Yambla San Francisco company" found some links at News and browser but nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 17:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with DGG. I would have speedied it under A7, as initially requested -- Samir 01:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Nothing in searches to show it meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (WP:SNOW) as per WP:NOTADVERT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Book my flight private limited[edit]

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

Blatant advertisement. Oscarthecat (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Dcs002 (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Advert.--Human3015^TALK 07:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes and there's simply no obvious improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 17:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ABF99 (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The page is a blant advert. The subject doesn't appear to be notable and the Google results are not helping either. Yash! 06:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:COI article by a WP:SPA. No evidence of notability provided or identified. AllyD (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TechnoCalyps[edit]

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

No sources, no obvious claim of notability, no real facts Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wow, just over 6 hours from creation to AfD! Please give the creator a little time to breathe. This is a legitimate documentary, rated 7.5 by 180 users on IMDB. This is clearly a notable film, and this article needs some time to be developed. It is already tagged as a stub. Please don't nominate an AfD before the creator has had ample time to build the article. Better yet, follow WP:BEFORE and see how you might help the article first :) Dcs002 (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some more good results at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per just a little due diligence showing the topic (released in 2006 and continuing to screen over the following 8+ years) as having enough coverage in English and non-English sources to meet WP:NF. I note here that it was not at all difficult to show this through regular editing. We now a suitable start class artccle folks which can be further expanded and improved.folks. Y My thanks and apologies to author Curious1i. Brand new articles are more often given a fair chance. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Work in progress that shows facts and notability Ahwiv (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with nominator Jimfbleak. This article was speedily deleted earlier in the day and was recreated. There is "no obvious claim of notability, no real facts" Zpeopleheart (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. that "speedy" was because an inexperienced 275 lifetime edits contributor did not properly understand Wikipedia policy toward copy-vio and it was returned only after he was informed and his error was addressed. His WP:AGF edit summary was quite revealing: "2nd attempt -- HOPEfully can avoid Speedy Deletion due to Copyright problems..." So, your speaking about something which no longer exists is not a decent deletion rational here. As for your repeating the nom's disproven statement "no obvious claim of notability, no real facts", that early concern has been addressed through it being shown that this Belgium film has analysis, coverage and commentary in multiple sources... many non-English. Thank you though for your echoing of the nom's opinion of the article pre-improvement. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, okay so this "article" was nominated for speedy deletion twice right before it was nominated for deletion. Do not try to interpret what I have stated here, and try to carve my words into something else. I stand by my vote to delete, and I commend the nominator on catching this one after two speedy delete tries! Zpeopleheart (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two ? ? I see that the author received ONE automated copyvio notice (by bot) and ONE speedy notice (from you). But even were there two actual "speedies" attempted, that matter no longer applies. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and a "Wow?" I only wanted others visiting this discussion to understand that a corrected issue with a past submission from an-inexperienced-contributor-willing-to-learn should not somehow taint an unbiased consideration of an improved version. I am myself less able to disregard the many English and non-English reliable sources covering this, and a closer will make the final judgement. Thank you. I commend the author for not storming off in a huff and his being so willing to address early concerns.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put... In its nominated BEFORE it was unsourced and in a poor article format... and in its corrected AFTER it is now sectioned and properly sourced under MOS:FILM to show a meeting of WP:NF. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ziauddin Yousafzai[edit]

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

I have nothing against him having an article here but at the present state the article does not give ANYTHING about his notability. All I can find is that he is the educational attache', so do all educational attache's get articles? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "United Nation's advisor on Global education" is Notable. --Human3015^TALK 06:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The UN has like thousands of "advisors" we cannot give them all articles just because they are "advisors", I don't think even all of "consultants" and "officers" have articles. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:14, 13 October 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) 05:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / merge to Malala Yousafzai. It's an interesting case of notability coming not from a parent to a child but in the other direction. The position does not seem notable, but his nomination generated a bit of a buzz, given that his daughter is a media darling. Still, it seems to fall under WP:ONEEVENT and such, and the best solution would be to merge the article to a family section of his daughter article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The UN might have thousands of advisers (not sure if that's the same as "special adviser"), but they do not all get this kind of coverage. I think he satisfies GNG on his own, being covered in depth in numerous RS. We do have room for anyone who meets GNG guidelines. As to notability deriving from his daughter, yes, that would be valid if he did nothing else, but he has an important position with the UN now, and because of that position he is getting lots of RS coverage. Dcs002 (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he satisfies GNG as others have pointed out. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP - If the bloke's notable then there's no reason to nominate, Anyone closing on one !vote. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prayag Jha[edit]

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

He seems likely notable and I found links here, here, here, here and here but the article would certainly need better improvement and attention if kept. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. meets the standard for WP:CREATIVE. DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 18 October 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) 05:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blissed[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable band with a certainly unacceptable current article and the best links I found were here. It's also worth noting this seemed to have been started by the band themselves in July 2008 and the article has hardly changed since then. Pinging tagger Stifle and I'm not sure if tagger BNutzer will comment here but I'll notify them anyway. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 13 October 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) 05:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but needs sourcing badly. If they hit the top ten on the CCM charts (source?), that's big for a Christian band. They don't usually make the Billboard charts, just like classical recordings have their own ratings. They did an international tour, so there must be press from that tour. Robert Sweet was so huge from his mainstream crossover Christian metal band Stryper that, at the very least, this article might be considered for a merge into his page (which looks like it could use some expanding). Maybe all their notable recordings and touring was at the beginning when Robert Sweet was with them, but that's still something. So, keep it & tag it. Dcs002 (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched for some reliable sources but nothing is coming up for me. Seems like this is a pretty obscure band, with no reliable coverage with which to make an article. mikeman67 (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches were difficult due to the commonality of the name, but I couldn't find any in-depth stuff on this band. I would say merge to Sweet's article, except there is not a single thing in this article which is currently backed up by a reliable source, except that they released an album (Waking Up the Dead). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 21:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Vucci[edit]

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

"Evan Vucci photographer" found links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam but I question whether this somewhat sourced and seemingly acceptable article is notable and there's also no move target to elsewhere. This also hasn't changed much since April 2005 and it simply seems he's best known for that one event. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article tells us that Vucci "[breathes] new perspectives in individuals and organizations worldwide, igniting the human spirit to overcome rising challenges, maintain naiveté [sic] and celebrate life." I sense the maintenance of naïveté within this very article. -- Hoary (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 13 October 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) 05:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like one of those articles about a notable subject that no one has sourced. It sounds like his body of work is probably seen all over the world. We delete for non-notability, and we tag and work on subjects that appear notable. I know no one has done so in several years, and that includes us. I don't think we should delete it unless we have done the work. Dcs002 (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Been up 3weeks & 90% sure we're gonna get any better than this!, Bloke's notable so wrapping it up (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Plant Bower[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable. all I could find for coverage is merely confirming he held posts. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Canadian Ambassador to Japan and then West Germany? That seems pretty notable to me per WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree that ambassadors on their own aren't notable, but he seems to have some individual notability. He has an entry in the Manitoba Historical Society as a Memorable Mantioban [48], and some searches of newspapers (especially from his postings in Venezuela and West Germany) have articles quoting him during diplomatic incidents. I think there's enough notability there to keep. -- R45 ^talk! 21:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 13 October 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) 05:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Draft space. Sandstein 20:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E-coin[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON for this cryptocurrency related company. Some good coverage in industry trades, but standard searches do not reveal any significant mentions in general reliable sources. Article was a good faith AFC accept (ping @Timtrent:) Suggest company can be mentioned on List of bitcoin companies, and this article moved to Draft space. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks for the ping, 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR. My sole addition to this discussion is at Talk:E-coin#Acceptance. I intend to remain scrupulously neutral over this article. I'm not sure that returning it to the draft: namespace is particularly useful at present, based on the fact that it was not getting improved there (perhaps it cannot be improved), but the community will decide. Fiddle Faddle 16:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now likely as although I haven't started looking closely at this, it's imaginable it is not going to be improvable or independently notable for that matter. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the sourcing, this article would appear to just pass the guidelines for a notable company (WP:CORP). I don't think we can expect that topics that are developing rapidly and online are going to have the same sorts of sourcing of more traditional topics. At their most basic, the notability guidelines are concerned with whether there are independent and objective discussions of a topic that work in such a way as to make it worthy of inquiry and discussion. Keeping in mind that notability attaches to the subject of an article (not the article's contents), this fits. Guidelines aside, the article underwent good-faith authoring after an AfC discussion, and ought to be given the benefit of the doubt. Timtrent I promise, Wikipedia doesn't really delete every new page users author.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, User:Timtrent has a tough skin, and besides, they were the AfC reviewer who mainspaced the article, not the creator of the article -- see Special:Contributions/Olyameow for the actual creator. Another heavy contributor was Special:Contributions/Tsoydarya. Since both of them are single-purpose-usernames at present (pure E-coin), and also beginning editors from their edit-counts, I will presume they probably both would bangkeep here at AfD, and thus will not ping them in this comment to avoid WP:CANVASSING. However, at least one of them seems interested in continuing to improve the article, see e.g. this query,[49] so perhaps re-draftify is the correct approach, as outlined below. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 13 October 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) 05:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify contents back into AfC, and Redirect wikilink E-coin to a newly-created entry in List of bitcoin companies, which is using pure WP:NOTEWORTHY and not yet WP:CSC, and thus is a good place to WP:PRESERVE the trade-rag refs. Although I found one passing mention in general-readership WP:RS, which was HuffPo-guest-blog in Sep'15 ("9 Giant Banks Make a Deal on Blockchain"),[50] the article in question was written by a blog-aggregator person Alex Salkever who cited one of the blogs his corporation aggregates, namely the one by William Mougayar (see also [51][52]), and the namedrop of E-coin was the definition of passing mention. E-coin was listed in a collapsed sidebar-box as "one of the over 500 blockchain-related organizations" in the universe... though in fact there are only ~444 such organizations listed by HuffPo once dupes are elided.

Wikipedia should have articles on the highly-cited organizations from that massive list, but not on all 400+ of them, per WP:NOTDIR (and per WP:GNG). By my rough count, not including redirects, we currently have slightly over 50 of the organizations as bluelinks (plus a dozen articles about organizations not listed there), which is ~~12.5% of the list aka 7 out of 8 blockchain-related orgs are not yet wiki-notable. Is e-coin in the top decile of all bitcoin organizations? Probably WP:NotJustYet. In terms of extant bluelinks, just looking at non-bitcoin-specific-refs, e-coin is tied for 55th place in WP:SOURCES when simply counting publisher-noses; our top-ten-best-cited-bluelinks all have at least seven non-bitcoin-specific-WP:SOURCES, top 20 have 5+ non-BTC-refs, top 30 have 3+ non-BTC-refs, top 40 have 2+ non-BTC-refs, and the top 50 have 1+ non-BTC-refs (usually somebody impeccable like the WSJ which has a regular blog about bitcoin-and-related-topics). Once e-coin has more than bare namedrops outside the bitcoin-trade-rags (a couple such refs would be ideal), putting the firm back into mainspace should be a no-brainer.

p.s. The reason to put the material into draftspace, aka draftify-and-redirect rather than simply delete-and-redirect, is that the firm may be getting additional press-coverage in the next few months; unsubmitted AfC drafts last six months before bot-cleanup, even when nobody is modifying the draft. If the material *is* draftify-n-redirect'd then it makes sense to put a visible-comment on the redirect-page mentioning the draftspace version, so nobody starts working on de-redirection without realizing there is already a stub in draftspace for them to start from. Also, given the usernames which created the AfC article, and the mention of Russian language support in the software, it is possible that WP:RS exist in Russian-language publisher for the corporation, which is another reason I lean towards to draftify-n-redirect rather than delete-n-redirect. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be userfied if somebody wants it. Sandstein 20:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mubarak Center[edit]

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

The subject of this article is an unbuilt building, and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. The sources currently in the article amount to web forum posts and a single press release. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate coverage from reliable sources, but were not successful. I am recommending deletion due to failing general notability guidelines. If appropriate sources are located during the course of this discussion please notify me on my talk page. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, links and references are available on the article. You just need to open your eyes and watch carefully instead of making excuses. Mohsin17 (talk) 06:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are links in the article, but they fail our requirements as reliable sources. By reviewing the references section of the Mubarak Center article, one can see that you have cited WWW.TAAVUN.COM.PK seventeen times, and none of the claims made are supported by the link you provided. The remainder of the links are internet web forums (WWW.URBANPK.COM/forums/index.php/), one dead link, a YouTube video, and a press release hosted by SKYSCRAPERNEWS.COM. Several members of the community, myself included, have repeatedly requested that you stop introducing unreliable sources to Wikipedia articles, including web forums, press releases, and similarly unreliable sources, and this is no exception. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy until a better article is available including when it is completed. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm unable to make a recommendation here. The name (due to press photo citation practices -- "Mubarak (center)" is a typical result) makes it difficult to track down much. Certainly the sources as offered are non-viable, but the question in an AfD is where they exist at all. I'm inclined to say this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, but would be curious to know what domestic press have to say on the topic that might make it at least verifiable/reliable. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 03:03, 19 October 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) 05:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Yamaguchi and SwisterTwister. The IP's comments are cogent, but no RS have been provided, and searches have not revealed any. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. looks just short Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALinux[edit]

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

Non-notable OS, seems to be discontinued, no significant reliable coverage. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 00:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 00:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep : The article isn't especially good or useful, and probably results from the confusing Wikipedia policy that entries in a list must nearly always link to an article (as in Wikipedia:PROSE ). In some of the distributions, like Kogaionon, the editor of the list simply linked to the notable thing the distribution was named for -- which is a wholly improper result, but the only real response to what seems to be the policy. Here, this article is linked from List of Linux distributions, and without it, the list will be incomplete for no good reason. Perhaps someone with a clearer grasp of the policy can explain how this apparent conflict is resolved.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to be (relatively) recently discontinued, but certainly isn't notable. This was all I found on it. -- Kethrus |talk to me 16:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 12 October 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) 04:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. Yes, it's possible that a stub was created just so that it could be added to a list of Linux distributions. However, we are under no obligation to keep these kinds of articles. We're not a directory listing or indiscriminate collection of information. Articles must satisfy our inclusion criteria. There are other places on the Internet that can and do catalog every single Linux distribution, such as DistroWatch. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are some sources, especially if you search using the old name ("Peanut Linux"). aLinux distro 2005-2015 (during which it had to compete with Puppy Linux), fka Peanut Linux distro 1996-2005 (during which it did not); at various points aLinux/Peanut was a debian derivative and/or a slackware derivatve. Primary person responsible was Jay Klepacs (of Canada). This was one of the lightweight-distros-yet-full-featured-distros, a bit heavier than Puppy Linux but about the same as Vector Linux (and of course considerably heavier than Damn Small Linux and Tiny Core Linux and other uber-tiny-distros), but often included in the same category by the press as them, since the project-goals were similar.

Michael P. Deignan. "Slim Pickings: Two Linux distributions trim the fat". CNET News. Archived from the original on March 8, 2001. ...for users who want to download a distribution over a 56k modem. If you travel frequently, a distribution that can reasonably be downloaded via a dial-up connection could be a blessing if disaster strikes ... We tested two compact distributions--Peanut Linux and Vector Linux... test system was a Pentium-200 with a 3GB hard disk, 64MB of RAM...
Russell C. Pavlicek (November 29, 2002). "Column: Bits and Snippets". InfoWorld. ...some current Linux distributions are too bulky for some old hardware (such as 486s and some first-generation Pentiums). What is needed here is a lighter-weight distribution, such as Peanut Linux, which can do a full install on a 486 or better with 32MB of memory and a 600MB hard drive. ...
Cynthia Harvey (May 10, 2011). "50 Top Linux Distributions". Lightweight Distros... aLinux [one of four]. Formerly known as Peanut Linux, aLinux is designed to be both fast and multimedia-friendly. Its graphic interface provides an easy transition for former Windows users.
Cynthia Harvey (January 5, 2015). "Open Source Software List: 2015 Ultimate List". ...Section: Operating Systems and Kernel Modifications [list of 89 distros]... aLinux. Formerly known as Peanut Linux, aLinux is designed to be both fast and multimedia-friendly. Its graphic interface provides an easy transition for former Windows users. ...

Besides the more-general computer/IT trade press above, there are of course some Linux-specific press-cites.

linux-specific refs

Marcel Gagné (Dec 18, 2000). "Give the Gift of Linux this Holiday Season". ...If space is a great concern, there are a few Linux distributions that take space very seriously (including some of the ones I mentioned above). Try out Peanut Linux or Pygmy Linux. Once their system is installed...

Michael Conry. "News Bytes". Linux Gazette. Archived from the original on February 19, 2013. ...Distro News [section]: ...Peanut. Moving to Peanut Linux. (link to review at NewsForge.com which is currently at https://web.archive.org/web/20030803083704/http://newsvac.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/03/14/1612205 giving a longer blurb, "Walter Kruse offers up his experiences with Peanut Linux. Not talked about as often as more high profile commercial distros, this flavor of Linux is fast, lightweight, and suited to both new and advanced users", which in turn links to https://web.archive.org/web/20030803034942/http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT3654654073.html for the Walter Kruse review. Same review with same blurb was linked from here as well, https://web.archive.org/web/20151022081307/http://archive09.linux.com/articles/28295) ... {{cite web}}: External link in |quote= (help)

"DistroWatch Page Hit Ranking". Distrowatch. January 11, 2012. Last 12 months... #156 aLinux ...
"Directory [section] / Distributions / Desktop / aLinux". 2005-09-16. ...Earliest Compatible Linux Kernel: 2.6.29. aLinux founded in 1996 (formerly Peanut Linux) was originally based on Debian. It has since transcended into an RPM based distribution. Approved architecture(s) - AMD / Intel - aLinux is a completely Free Linux Operating System. Desktop interface is always KDE based. ...
"Feature Article: The LWN.net Linux Distribution List". ...aLinux is a Professional Linux Operating System (700MB) designed for ease of use and sports a visually stunning Graphical User Interface, while maintaining a level of sophistication that experienced linux users can appreciate. Formerly known as Peanut Linux when v12.1 was released February 23, 2005. The name was changed to aLinux and version 12.2 was released March 24, 2005. Version 12.8 was released July 31, 2006. aLinux 14.0 was released June 1, 2010. aLinux 15.0 was released February 22, 2013.
"DistroWatch: Distributions". April 29, 2004. ...Peanut Linux 9.6. A 100% pure Linux, glibc, libc6 ELF system. The entire system when installed is less than 999MB...
Joseph Colton (September 24, 2002). "Linux Guidebook". Brigham Young University–Hawaii. Linux Distributions [section] ... Red Hat is currently the most popular company that makes a Linux distribution, but there are many more. Some of the more common ones are Red Hat, Caldera, Debian, Mandrake, SuSE, Beowulf, Peanut Linux. Many of these distributions can be ... {{cite web}}: |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help)

There is probably sufficient depth of coverage in the Linux-specific sources to write a start-class article, but I'm not sure there is enough generic-IT trade-press coverage to pass WP:GNG. Wiki-tradition is for FLOSS projects to get a bit of a break in terms of what counts as WP:RS (see e.g. WP:NSOFT essay), but methinks that tends to be more applicable for *active* projects that the readership might actually find useful to them in real life. As a historical project, WP:NOTTEMPORARY applies of course, but it's borderline whether we have enough sources to properly write up an article about this defunct project/product.

It is possible offline sources from the late 1990s exist, if somebody has access to glossy-print-computer-magazines from that era. p.s. For the younger readership, there was this thing back in the day, called "64 megabytes of RAM" which was quite an impressive thing... you may be more familiar with "gigs" nowadays, which are vaguely related. ;-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The CNET article looks good, but the others are trivial mentions. The entire news article doesn't have to be about this topic, but we need more than a confirmation that it exists. This would include single sentence mentions, top ten lists, database entries, etc. It's useful to have an exhaustive list of every open source project that has ever existed, yes, but that's an argument to avoid. Though it's more commonly associated with fandom, Wikia is a better place for exhaustive coverage of non-notable topics. Or, like I said before, DistroWatch. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to JayFrance#Discography. Duplicate. Redirection to existing sections/articles is preferred to AFD in such circumstances, and should at least be attempted first. postdlf (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JayFrance production discography[edit]

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

Simple duplication of JayFrance#Discography

Given that article (created a day ago) is wearing an unref tag dated from July, I also wonder if that article is a new recreation of an old deleted article? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created for adding non-single music production discographies from past and or future references. MikeJamesz

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as any necessary information is best at the first article. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 12 October 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) 04:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough significance currently to warrant its own article. The appropriate place is on the artist's page, where it is already included. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rizin Fighting Federation[edit]

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

Non-notable mixed martial arts organisation. Recently formed. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brand new MMA organization that is months away from running their first fight card. Fails to meet WP:NORG and the lack of significant coverage means it also fails to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until a better can be accomplished. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have helped cleaned up the article and added proper information with sources that relate to this promotion. There has been some decent coverage of this new organization among MMA media. Furthermore, there will be more information released by Sakakibara and RIZIN about this new organization within the coming months. (FistsOfFury123 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 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) 04:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article is better but the main issues still remain. Predicting notability is WP:CRYSTALBALL and their have been a number of mixed martial arts organisations that are functioning there were deleted after AfD on notability grounds, length of existence, and coverage.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still no indication of notability. References are PR and fight announcements, not significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy if needed. Clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Score. Don't usually close on one !vote but does make sense to just redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where Do You Run[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS, as it did not chart. MSJapan (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band. A standalone article isn't merited. --Michig (talk) 06:09, 14 October 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) 04:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010^Talk 01:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Score (band)[edit]

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

Currently a one-hit wonder act. Had one song chosen for an ad campaign, but their "debut EP" did not chart. We already have an article on the song (which is notable per WP:NSONG), but this band only meets that same single criterion in WP:NBAND, and there's no substantial coverage (per Google). A band does not inherit notability based on meeting NSONG, and meeting one criterion of ten in NBAND simply is not sufficient grounds for inclusion. MSJapan (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They had a hit and there's sufficient coverage for a short article. The article on the song should be merged here. --Michig (talk) 06:03, 14 October 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) 04:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 06:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 06:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep likely as I agree there may not be much but it's enough for an article. SwisterTwister talk 17:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Fisher (soccer)[edit]

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

I CSD'd this article when it was first published and someone deleted it. Does not meet WP:NSOCCER. She is a college soccer player. Charlie the Pig (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 05:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything that can bring her up to GNG, though I would love to hear if the original author can. Dcs002 (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:NCOLLATH, and doesn't even play on the Binghamton women's soccer team; she played on the women's lacrosse team as noted in the article's sole reference. The only mention of her playing soccer was before college. Unable to locate coverage coming close to meeting WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY + [WP:GNG|GNG]]. –Davey2010^Talk 01:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DaForce Dawg[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Him talking about him is not ondependent of him. Reel Recon is a personal blog, not a reliable source .Releases are not on "important" label. Lacks charting, gold, rotation, awards. (note, previously at Daforce) duffbeerforme (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 04:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 04:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's unlikely much for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources and external links look promotional. Fails GNG, appears promotional. Dcs002 (talk) 06:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches show it doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Source searches are not providing enough coverage to meet WP:BASIC / WP:MUSICBIO. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apademik[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Releases are not on "important" label, The Orchard is a ditribution network not a tradional record label. Part of a walled garden built by his record company. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 04:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 04:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 04:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 04:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in any case as this has existed since February 2007 with not much better change and it's unlikely this can be better improved. Pinging tagger Dthomsen8. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see how all those sources, many of which are dead liks, listings, or otherwise not reliable sources. add up to notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Africian Raga[edit]

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

This article was turned into a redirect by Lockley. Jerzy has turned the redirect back into an article, which caused AnomieBOT to recreate Category:Articles needing additional categories from February 2013. However, the article is not notable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 03:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 03:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or change it back to a Redirect. All text is unverifiable (and subsequently fails WP:CRYSTAL), and the topic does not meet WP:NF (in accordance with information given). —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 03:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually somewhat argue against a redirect unless we can prove that this film is being made and that the production is at least notable enough for a mention on Ghandi's page. I wager that there are likely a lot of films out there about Ghandi, documentary or otherwise, so we should reserve redirects for things that would warrant a mention on his article. So far it's fairly slow going and I'm really not finding much to show that this would be all that good of a redirect. Also, the name of this is "African Raga", so this title is misspelled. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, things like this 2012 blog article give off the impression that this is about Indians in Africa in general, not specifically about Gandhi. I'm wondering if this film wasn't dropped or was released and gained no notice, since I'm not finding much on this at all, just SPS and primary sources from around 2012. I'm leaning more solidly towards a delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only mention I can find about this in anything remotely approaching a reliable source is a brief mention in this 2013 article. This is far too brief to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia even as a mention somewhere. Since what little I can find for this film shows that this is about " tracing the 150-year history of Indians in Africa" rather than about Gandhi specifically, I would argue strongly against redirecting it to his page - especially since there's really not enough here to even warrant a mention on his article. If anyone wants to create it in the future if/when this documentary ever gets released, I have no issue with that - it's just that right now this is far, far too soon for an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per being TOO SOON. A trailer and minor press was released in 2012, and the official website found using the proper spelling of its name, is still active. Until or unless we get a whole lot more, this does not meet any portion of WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately, not enough coverage or developments here, yet. — Cirt (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tokyogirl79's solid reasoning above. --Lockley (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For the record, that's the kind of process i was hoping i would trigger. I think most of you looked at it more carefully than i, and i think the only useful thing i can add to the discussion is that since "Ghandi Ji" (or whatever the correct punctuation and casing is) combines the surname with a term of high religious respect -- my impression is that it would roughly parallel "St. Mohandas" (but for the detail that some niggling theological disagreements will probably stand in the way of a Catholic canonization process for at least a few more generations) and thus for most English-language contexts, it is

too close to being redundant (for identification purposes), and

too confusing for many English-as-first-language speakers, to count as a clarification about which Ghandi we have in mind.

--Jerzy•t 21:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect editorially if you want. Sandstein 21:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Space[edit]

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

Jargon term that essentially means mirrored memory, a feature of many different computers, but only refers to the TI-89 Titanium. Blah2 (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to TI-89 series as there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Neologism for "Virtual Memory". Markitecture article. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second Avenue (album)[edit]

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

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Well Kept Secrets, the result was redirect so this article probably isn't notable enough to belong in Wikipedia either. Blackbombchu (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Blackbombchu (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Blackbombchu (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I really don't see the logic in suggesting that an AfD for a different album that only had two participants is going to be a good guide for anything. This album has reviews from Allmusic, the Washington Post, and coverage from the Star-Democrat, and probably more that's offline. --Michig (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Bad call by the nominator for AfD. This article should not have been nominated for AfD. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:NALBUMS #1 per sources provided by Michig above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Horick[edit]

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

Large amounts of passing mentions, but no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Nothing found via Google News. Thus we have to conclude that Horick is not (yet) notable. The article was prodded for that reason, but all that was added were more passing mentions, plus a non-independent source. Huon (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of the work is the reason that the subject is covered in what has been deemed "passing mentions." The subject is typically included in programs or events with multiple artists, and therefore discussions of the subject/subject's work are in the context of a collection of other artists as well. 5 October 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redweagle (talk • contribs) 21:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as although News, browser and Highbeam found some links, there's not much for better sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches turned up not enough in-depth independent coverage to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Trade Review[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by anonymous IP without stated reason. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A WP:SPA article by User:Andreaviski concerning a new journal edited by Andreas Viski [53]. Its first issue has been published in autumn 2015. At best, WP:TOOSOON; at this time it does not meet WP:JOURNALCRIT. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. clpo13_(talk) 20:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but searches don't show it meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maks Gabriel[edit]

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

Fails both WP:NMUSIC and WP:BIO for lack of any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A search found only self-published sources or trivial mentions in press releases. Article appears to be an autobiography per the editor's comment here. (The article was first speedy deleted as a copyvio and then recreated from a direct copy-paste of text from the individual's website after the website page was released under a Creative Commons license.) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no obvious signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no in-depth coverage from independent sources to show notability on any of the searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive Objects and the INtegration of processes and Systems[edit]

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

Non-notable standard. An emerging standard in the construction industry, there is no sign of widespread acceptance within the industry. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article is so poorly written, and so thoroughly obscure, that it is almost impossible for anyone not an expert in the field (whatever that field may be) to comment meaningfully on this proposal. The article cites no sources, so there is nothing from which anyone could determine that this is a standard that has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, nor would I have a clue where to look for such sources based on the contents of the article. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 23:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Page 23 of this document defines COINS as an Emerging standard with Low adoption rate. That is really the most substantive information I could find on the standard. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems like an effort to promote a non-notable standard. bd2412 T 15:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – a search yields no significant attention by independent sources, so the topic must be deemed nonnotable. --Lambiam 18:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Markitecture advertisement for non-notable standard. as per above. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Show of Arms[edit]

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

DeleteReason JoeDeg31 (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had created this page for promotion of this club. I believe that this subject is not worthy of a page of its own. Thus I am nominating my own page for deletion JoeDeg31 (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 as an article about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mebe0003 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has received coverage in reliable sources. Bharatiya29 (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:As per Bharatiya29, there are coverage of the subject in the reliable sources cited here. Ayub407^talk 18:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Out of seven sources cited in the page only three are relevant. Two do not exist (reference 1 and 5); the group's web site is inactive for at least three years and abandoned half way through (reference 2); another link (reference 7) nowhere mentions the club in question and hence it is not proof of the subject's notoriety.JoeDeg31 (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 is here. Bharatiya29 (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft & userfy as the best links I found were here and I'm not seeing much for improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The question is whether this is a notable re-enactment group. Some re-enactment groups probably are notable; others probably not. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G7. JoeDeg31 is the original author and only substantantial contributor. All edits since it was approved at AfC have been bots or bot-like, such as running ReFill on it. It isn't clear to me why Beeblebrox declined the G7. Joe followed procedure by blanking it to request a delete, so calling his action vandalism seems off the mark. Worldbruce (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Letele[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NBOX and the author seems to have a close connection to the subject. It's just way too early for this article. Charlie the Pig (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have a close connection with David Letele I only know him professionally but never really met him plus i get most of his details from his promoters --Bennyaha (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he has done more in his life than you Charlie the pig. Forensic_guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.179.222 (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the notability criteria for boxers - see WP:NBOX. Also to the unsigned comment above - while he may have achieved much in his personal life, which is credible, he still needs to meet the Wiki requirements for notability. Also please refrain from personal attacks, even if you disagree with an opinion expressed - see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. NealeFamily (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. No demonstrated notability beyond boxing - does not meet WP:NBOX.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only routine sports coverage and fails to meet WP:NBOX. Mdtemp (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Winning a corporate title is not sufficient to meet WP:NBOX. Coverage is routine sports reporting, although he does seem to have a habit of attacking his opponents at the weigh-in. Papaursa (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice against renaming. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 15:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of automobiles notable for negative reception[edit]

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

This article is not written in an encyclopedic style. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator has not provided a valid deletion rationale, i.e. WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. AFD is not cleanup. -- ferret (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not a valid deletion rationale, WP:NOTCLEANUP, there's a precedent for these types of articles existing. List of video games notable for negative reception, List of films considered the worst, List of music considered the worst, etc, which have all survived multiple past AFDs. Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is mostly a collection of commentaries without a real objective support, compiled with a made-up criteria established by the article creator. Most of the "sources" are personal essays without objective criticism, overwhelmingly bad jokes. The fact that other similar articles exist is really not a strong argument to keep this article on-wiki. --Urbanoc (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just WP:OSE when they've survived AFDs time and time again. If consensus to to keep them over and over again, then it becomes precedent. Experienced editors are working on the talk page to address the various cleanup issues, using criteria from similar articles to create more concrete inclusion criteria. Pointless commentary can and will be removed, but there are definitely reliable sources that provide significant coverage on the subject. Sergecross73 msg me 01:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:OSE does not apply here since the agreement is not simply that the other 3 articles exists but that they have each survived multiple AFD's (the article with the least having 5) meaning that there is a consensus to keep these types of articles.--67.68.163.32 (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The style of the the article is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. It just needs more work such as adding the Reliant Robin and Sinclair C5. Andrew D. (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename List of automobiles considered the worst, replace the grab bag of subjective criteria ("poor critical reception, poor customer reception, safety defects, and/or poor workmanship") and do a complete overhaul. There are lots of published Trabantian lists.[54][55][56][57] In fact, 12 of the 47 current references are Time magazine's list of the 50 worst. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opposition to a rename. I believe it was named after the video game list variant - List of video games notable for negative reception - which was only named differently than the "considered the worst" articles, because editors wanted to better distinguish it from the List of controversial video games article - one focusing on poorly reviewed titles, while other focusing on controversial titles - not the same thing, as some controversial titles, like Grand Theft Auto or Mortal Kombat have been generally well reviewed. I'm not aware of any equivalent "controversial car" title, so its not necessary to distinguish. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No opposition to rename from me either. -- ferret (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I will agree to keep as long as this article is renamed as proposed by Clarityfiend as the guidelines needs to be tightened up; this is as the video game list is slack on inclusion criterias compared to the movie list (inclusion of rush produced games with the aim of shamelessly cashing-in on major sports event). Donnie Park (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hemi Ahio[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NBOX and it's way too soon for this article, even if he is undefeated. Charlie the Pig (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NBOX and no indication he will soon. Undefeated in professional boxing, especially with only 8 fights, only means that his promoter is doing his job.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom NealeFamily (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable boxer. Article was created WP:TOOSOON. Mdtemp (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. His only coverage is routine sports reporting of his fights. Papaursa (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Half Machine Records[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable; although there are some in-depth sources about some of their artists, there appears to be little or no significant sources about Half Machine Records. Bjelleklang - talk 07:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is another case of no better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The LOGOS Ministry[edit]

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

My searches found nothing better than some links at Books and browser and this has hardly changed since the author moved it to mainspace themselves from userspace. Notifying tagger Esprit15d. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The article seems to be guilty of POPPY language and probably exaggeration. It has the feel of being a single church congregation trying to pretend it is something more substantial. As I am unsure, I am not voting. If kept, to should be moved to GenOn Ministries, the current name. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. essentially a non-notable publisher . DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not reveal enough to show they meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kamu Mukherjee[edit]

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

The best my searches found was this and this and although some of the News links say he is "inimitable" suggesting he may have been known by some, there's nothing to suggest better improvement and not to mention this has stayed the same since starting in August 2006. Notifying tagger Titodutta. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. whatare desceribed as his"best roles"are very minor roles in the films. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and DGG. Searches turned up nothing to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mighty Lumberhorn[edit]

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

I considered speedying again as A7 like Hello32020 in November 2006 but considering its age and the amount of edits since then, a full nomination may be best and my searches simply found nothing better than some of the listed links (found them at News and browser, the few that there are). There's simply nothing to suggest improvement for this seemingly now non-existent band and there's nothing to suggest it was better known even locally (Mighty Lumberhorn would also have to be deleted). I'm also notifying Anne Delong and author Roboticus. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I added three references, but that was all I could find aside from a couple of upcoming event listings and a CD release announcement which mentioned them. This is light coverage even for a local band.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above editor. Not enough in-depth coverage on the search engines to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NBAND, despite Anne Delong's nice effort at saving. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After additional sourcing was found by Hirolovesswords, consensus, though slim, was keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renata von Tscharner[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as although I found links at News, Books, browser and Highbeam, there's nothing to suggest keeping a separate article and as there's no article for the Charles River Conservancy, there if at all can be a mention at Charles River's article about conservation and stewardship. No one is more serious and conscious about the environment about me so it's unfortunate this can't be kept. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Conservatory--he was the founder. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Has received significant coverage in The Boston Globe, Newton Tab, and River Republic: The Fall and Rise of America's Rivers. Also appears to have received significant coverage in the Newton Tab article "Planner and environmentalist starts foundation to restore and maintain the Charles River" listed in the article's references, however, as I can not find this article online, I can only accept its existence on good faith. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per a review of sources provided by Hirolovesswords above: [58], [59], [60]. Here's another source (subscription required). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lexis PR[edit]

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

Quite questionably notable company as although I found some links at News, Books, browser and Highbeam, there's simply nothing to suggest better improvement for this speedy and PROD-worthy article that has managed to stay since October 2007. Notifying past users Vrenator and Fluffernutter. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to distinguish this pr agency. In general, � such companies work with occasional major brands-- it would be significant if it were the principal agency for several of them, but that's not stated. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above editor. Nothing in searches to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for Lou Cowell and no consensus for Simon Cowell (presenter). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Cowell[edit]

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

(NOTE:I am also nominating Simon Cowell (presenter))

I found this article first and immediately found nothing but results for American Idol's Simon Cowell and now looking at her father's article (and I literally thought this was AI's Simon Cowell until looking closely), there's nothing to suggest better as well with the best search results here, here and here. So the daughter is definitely not notable but as for Simon, I'm sure if redirecting to the show's article is best or simply deleting. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment something is wonky. There is an AfD announcement on Simon Cowell (presenter) which directs to here. If both are up for deletion the other article should have a separate listing or a multilisting here.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Highly suggest creating a separate AfD for Simon, the two issues are not related.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Split decision:
1. Delete on Lou, failing WP:MUSICBIO
2. Keep on Simon, significantly passes WP:GNG (fits too many other categories). Article does need better sourcing.

--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lou. Does not meet GNG, nor any other category. No decision yet on Simon. I second separating these AfDs. LaMona (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder Stories (band)[edit]

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

Questionably notable and it definitely seems there is no better coverage for the band as the best I found was this and as for Keanan Duffty (which I am also co-nominating), the best I found was this, this, this this] and this so although his article is somewhat larger and detailed, he's also questionably notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keanan Duffty - no comment on the band article, as I know nothing about music and won't go anywhere near it, but I've definitely heard of the designer. Incidentally, please could you link to actual articles rather than the page of Google results, as I don't think we see the same results you do - I click through and often can't work out which results I'm supposed to be looking at. From the page refs, among the (wince) YouTube links, I see multiple articles in Women's Wear Daily (a good indicator that he's significant in his field, as WWD is a leading daily fashion paper). A peek at Highbeam pullls up 93 articles for his name, from 1999 through to 2012, many of which on a quick scan through are focused on him, his career, and what he's up to at that point in time. For example, I see a 2006 article devoted solely to a collaboration with Target and the responses to his designs, and a 2001 article discussing (over several paragraphs) what happened when Duffty and Reebok collaborated on a shoe show. A 2005 article with plenty of editoral commentary on the progress of his design career up to that point, before entering into an interview with him. And plenty more material. There is definitely more than enough coverage on the designer, and given the extent and level of that coverage, I wouldn't be surprised if the band passes notability too, but I can't comment on that. Mabalu (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no prejudice against recreation if sources have been found--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oyuny Chadvar[edit]

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

This is an interesting case because it may not even exist anymore (no website and searches found nothing about it) so unless it actually got considerable coverage at one time and is improvable, there's nothing to suggest keeping this speedy and PROD-worthy article from May 2008 and there's simply been no improvement and all the involved and interested editors have since retired so there's no one to ping. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ifwe have noverifiable information towriteanarticle. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find nothing to indicate that it meets, or ever met, WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Even if it is no longer in existence, the article claims it was established in 2006 which is recent enough that you would expect something to come up on google if it was notable. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches turned up nothing to suggest they pass either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

T-Bull[edit]

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

Unsourced and comes off as promotional for the company rather than just an article. GamerPro64 00:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only a few sources mention the company, and only in the context of press releases and game reviews. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH.- Mr X 00:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no obvious signs of better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no refs, fails WP:NCOMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why speedy deletion process? There's no speedy deletion for lack of refs or not being notable. Appable (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Originally proposed deletion as "Unsourced, no significant coverage in a video game reliable sources custom Google search". Nothing appears to have changed. czar 04:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and Czar. -- ferret (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I did a quick google search for Polish language sources and seem to have found some, but I'm not sure of their quality. Here are some articles: [61][62][63][64]. this article was published in Gazeta Wyborcza, one of the most read newspapers in Poland. In the mean time in case the article does get axed I'd like to take a better look at the sources and see if the article can be improved.--Prisencolin (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Montecrossa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Blatant promotion sourced to blogs, listings, primary and unreliable sources. A search found the usual press releases, promo, facebook, videos but nothing good. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found some links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam but not much convincingly good. Pinging past users Whpq and Ism schism. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To make it easier to read, I removed unsourced info. Now we can see what remains. What remains is a whole lot of self-published books and music and art. The "publisher" (Mirapuri) publishes solely Michel Montecrossa works. (Well, there may be some others) There are no "instructions to authors" that most publishers would have -- in other words, they aren't open to other authors or musicians. The text that I removed was grossly promotional (and some remains; I didn't think it worth while doing a full edit). Given the promo machine that this person is, it may be necessary to salt this one. I would expect to see it come back in some form. LaMona (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above editors, in particular, LaMona's excellent summation. Searches turned up little.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010^Talk 01:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Rosen[edit]

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

Though he appears to have cowritten a few notable songs, there is not enough biographical information in the sources cited to write a reasonable biography of him. See WP:COMPOSER. Note that I accepted this through AFC and then nominated for deletion because I don't think it should be kept, but don't feel confident enough in my assessment to make the call without further input. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Old Dominion unless deletion is actually thought to be best as if this is marginally acceptable and may be better in the future, this may be kept until then. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes general notability and Composer as well. Rmhermen (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:COMPOSER as he "has credit for writing ... music for a notable composition." Actually, seven of his songs are sufficiently notable that they have their own stand-alone articles. See Say You Do (Dierks Bentley song) (#1), Sangria (song) (#1), Better Dig Two (#1), and Break Up with Him (#3). and Category:Songs written by Trevor Rosen. Per WP:COMPOSER, wWhen a composer is known for multiple works, a merger with the article about his notable work may not be possible. Cbl62 (talk) 07:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per above, sufficient standalone notability asserted per WP:COMPOSER as the writer of several #1 hits. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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