Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 September	15 September >

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. Courcelles (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaan Shah[edit]

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

fails to meet notability guideline WP:BIO. Not every co-founder of a company merits inclusion; not notable. Sounds like self--promotion. Mathglot (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self-promotion based on self-published sources and references about the company (WP:NOTINHERITED applies). No in-depth coverage found via Google. @Mathglot: only a suggestion of course, but you could include a nomination for Harsh Patel here too, the other co-founder. The second article suffers from exactly the same problems and should be deleted aswell. GermanJoe (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanJoe: you may be right, but the procedures for deletion policy are pretty specific and step-by-step, and my understanding is it wouldn't be right to include a nomination for anybody else on this page, so let's keep discussion here limited to Shaan Shah. If you open a separate Afd (see WP:AFDHOWTO) for Harsh Patel, please ping me from there. Mathglot (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Maybe really better to have 2 separate nominations for clarity - done second one. GermanJoe (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no signs of improvement especially regarding better coverage and my searches found only a few links (indie blogs and such) that would not be helpful to better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The very most this should get is a redirect to MakerSquare per WP:ONEEVENT but I'm not even convinced of the notability of that organization. Derek Andrews (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grasshopper (company)[edit]

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

Article by an apparent undeclared paid editor, on a borderline notable firm, with promotional content.

Company has no references except for information about initial funding which I consider mere notices, and self-serving interviews with the promoters, which I consider non-independent no matter where published. I've read the WSJ article, and I regard it as promotionalism inspired by a PR stunt.

Best ___ under 25 and the like are similar to youth awards in athletics, and do not contribute to notability. If a company or firm does not have better to show, they are not notable. "Fastest growing" is also a gimmick for the not yet notable. , because the way to qualify for it is to go from essentially zero to very little.

As for promotionalism, names of products in Full capitals, a list of (non-notable) competitors, Managing to get in the name of the President of the US is blatant name dropping. A descriptive of the story of what I can best call their "cute meet" to found a product is a web site cliche. Such information can derive only from the two involved and is therefore not reliable, no matter where published.

It's going to be argued that the firm is notable. But it does not matter. Borderline notability combined with promotionalism is an equally good reason. Accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia . And it's unreasonable to expect volunteers to rewrite properly the hundreds of thousands of paid promotional articles that other people were paid for writing improperly. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only good source here is the WSJ article ([1]). But is it really WSJ? Partially, but it seems to be a syndicated (?) content / side blog from "editors of Dow Jones VentureWire" (blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/), through said editors are listed as "Reporter, Wall Street Journal". Still, it is a single source. NCOMPANY and other policies do say that a single source is not sufficient, and as such, I don't think this company cuts it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as my searches seemed to have found results at News and Books but nothing particularly good. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and promotional.

The only genuine content in this article is in the "History" section.
The sections on "Products and Services" and "National Entrepreneurs' Day" are pure puffery.
The awards are nothing (and mostly not awards, anyway): four of them relate to the founders, not the company; "Internet telephony" is a genuine award, if very dated; and being 66 out of 500 on a big list isn't an award or even anything much to shout about.
"Competitors" is irrelevant.
As for the references: those that contain more than a passing reference are about the founders and not the company.

So where's the company's notability? One minor award, nine years ago. A clever marketing campaign involving chocolate. That's it.

Andyjsmith (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Read through it a couple of times and I compared it to their website. Seemed to be a cleaned up/simplified version of their about page. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per unanimous consensus and the lack of deletion requests beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Berwick[edit]

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

I was recently asked to protect this because of BLP violations. I removed some BLP-violating material, blocked an SPA, and have since been asked to remove more. The result is that there isn't much of the article left. It isn't clear whether the subject is notable enough for an entry, and no one uninvolved seems keen to develop it, so I'm bringing it here. I have no opinion on this myself. Sarah ^(talk) 22:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An ethical dilemma is at work with this entry putting BLP guidelines in conflict with the truth

There are three major talking points all of which resulted in a less than favorable outcome. (Bitcoin ATM - Libertairian Housing Colony <both did not come to fruition, Nefarious Passport Service)

Contentious material is primarily that, if untrue

What if, In this case the "Contentious material, is true

~~Since the article is contentious and true, DELETE since it applies to BLP to do otherwise is Denialism~~ Grockeds (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grockeds has been indefblocked for block evasion/sockpuppetry. Sarah ^(talk) 16:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: broad selection of 3rd party sources cover the subject.[2] [3] [4] [5], daily bell bio [6]; many others listed on Talk by helpful IP contributor. Is also notable enough for the true movers and shakers to appear on his radio show and video cast [7] (([8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] etc)). Can stub it until someone decides to write an actual article. -- dsprc ^[talk] 07:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are Youtube, his own podcast, and other blogs (about 10). The most notable source you mentioned was an article called "Atlas Mugged" which speaks to the "ethical dilemma". Atlas Mugged talks about the loss of $4.3 million dollars of money and the estrangement of Berwick from the project within the context of a business controversy. The dilemma is that a balanced and truthful article cannot be written without referencing the controversy regarding a living person. As soon as you write an entry here there will be calls for NPOV and BLP because the secondary sources of merit are not neutral. I would appreciate if you could speak to the reconciliation of that point. If that point was not a blocking force, then I would write the article, its just that nobody would be happy with the end result If you cannot say something good about someone, don't say it. Grockeds (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:dsprc, if there is a bangkeep result, are you willing to watchlist Jeff Berwick, per my worries below? User:Grockeds, same question, if an article can be written, which neutrally covers the high-risk high-reward investments that the BLP-article must necessarily cover, are you willing to help maintain it, on your watchlist? As dsprc points out, the broadcaster-success seems to be largely positive, and I also believe that the bitcoin event will be a positive (once rewritten neutrally). There are extenuating circumstances for the passport thing, which apparently was legal in the specific country at the specific time, or at least quasi-legal. Anyways, I believe the article can be written to cover events properly, there are plenty of sources with nice things to say about Berwick, but I worry that the article will easily get out of whack again, in a bad way, if we don't have several people keeping an eye on it. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See list at Talk:Jeff_Berwick#WP:SOURCES, plus a couple in section below. I am happy to work on the article-rewrite, but do agree there are some BLP-issues at play here (talkpage has some examples of negative commentary by editors who apparently have real-world very strong opinions). I've never heard of this BLP-subject, but the sources are often glowly-positive and/or fiery-negative, from what I've seen; getting the NPOV balance right, of reflecting what the wiki-reliable sources say, with due weight, will be a bit tricky. Still, I think this is a keep, easily passes WP:GNG, as long as there are enough long-haul wikipedians willing to watchlist the page going forward, and act as long-term stewards of the rewritten version, to keep it from degenerating into a pro-Berwick puff-piece *or* an anti-Berwick hit-piece. There are potential real-world-legal-repercussions, to either kind of degeneration-mistake. p.s. The first AfD mentions some kind of yacht-accident, covered in pre-2005 newspapers, so coverage bursts are stockhouse.com (hypothetical), yacht-sinking, guests on podcast, chilean real estate, bitcoin ATMs, expat passports, and libertarian campaign, plus background-details like DOB and such. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Chilean real estate, bitcoin ATMs, expat passports <-tell me if any of these elements which make him notable had positive outcomes' Atlas Mugged, No source to support Berwicks withdrawal from https://bitcoinatm.com/ other than his own announcement on his own blog, and the Expat Passports the foreign press on the illegality of, other than that original research. There is not much that can be talked about here.Grockeds (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube are in parenths(); is just quick n' easy hack to note guest-list and is by no means being used as source for any particular content in article. wp:Wikipedia is not censored... warts and all that jazz. Have no opinion on subject (stumbled across AfD via recent changes). Is watchlisted but, am out of country with intermittent connectivity, so likely may be gaps in ability to respond to issues. If you want to hack out an article, IP 75.xxx, have at it (I've not time/motivation). I make no promises but can try. Need more eyes on it anyway, however. Can gold, white or orange lock if need be. -- dsprc ^[talk] 15:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: coverage is significant, passes WP:GNG. (Note: is listed in Mexico deletion sorting, probably should be in Chile instead.) Vrac (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Berwick had an investment in Chile a few years ago, but does not live there. He does currently have business interests, and quasi-residence, in Mexico.) User:Vrac, if the page is bangkeep, can you help watchlist it? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to watchlist. Vrac (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The quality of the article is irrelevant. The subject is well-known and easily passes gng. Just to make sure I had the right guy I double checked and found excellent sources including CNN, CNBC, Forbes along with tons of lesser-known sites, some of which are promotional garbage, but a few of which are good sources. The article may need TNT, but the subject is clearly notable.Jacona (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacona, can you please put the Jeff Berwick article on your watchlist, since there seem to have been a lot of BLP-violations there in the past? Your WP:CHOICE entirely of course, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. :-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, which is "changing" from my Comment above, back when I was still neutral. Passes WP:GNG as presently defined. Summarizing the extant sources wiki-neutrally should be possible, and I will give it a shot. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tropical medicine. Courcelles (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical doctor[edit]

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

unreferenced assertion. Below dictionary standard Rathfelder (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to tropical medicine as my searches simply found nothing solid for better improvement with the best results here but as this may be an acceptable search term for tropical medicine and is the base subject, it's a good option. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

good ideaRathfelder (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a job, but redirect may be the best outcome. Bearian (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tropical medicine, without delete, without prejudice to recreation at some point in the future with better sourcing. — Cirt (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable. Anyone who wants to look up "Tropical doctor" (though why I can't imagine, as it seems like a meaningless term) will see in the directory after the search fails that there is a Tropical medicine, although I suspect the merge votes will out. Quis separabit? 17:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tricomin[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs for notability, fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing any worthwhile improvement for both items and my searches here and here found results of course but, again, nothing that shows worthwhile improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Might Go Lesbian (Manika song)[edit]

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

Article, resting entirely on unreliable sources like Twitter and iTunes, about a song with no substantive claim of notability under WP:NMUSIC. Technically this qualifies for speedy deletion as an A9 — but the artist's article is up for DRV due to a controversial close, so I don't think an A9 is appropriate here. But even if her BLP does get restored or recreated, songs don't get automatic inclusion rights on Wikipedia just because they exist — they have to make and reliably source an actual claim of notability to earn a standalone Wikipedia article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Way too soon for one thing as song was just released. Also, there is no indication the song is or will ever be independently notable. Quis separabit? 21:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; clearly not notable. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. RoseL2P (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as G3 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krum Corporate[edit]

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

I have no opinion on this and am starting it from an IP who feels that this and the Charles Krum are both hoax articles. See User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Krum Corporate edit CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also including

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both: apparent hoaxes, although Charles Krum may exist. However, neither he nor his company is mentioned in any of the reflinks at the articles, respectively. Quis separabit? 21:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete both hoaxes, none of the sources mention the subjects, web searches yield zero results except Wikipedia Kraxler (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as G3 as this is obviously a joke. Pinging Hut 8.5 who actually moved the name to a different one. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grandluxe[edit]

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

Unremarkable company that fails WP:COMPANY. Kebabpizza (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better coverage especially to improve the article but feel free to restart or draft and userfy to userspace when better. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First Impressions (community)[edit]

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

Dubious notability, no mentions found in third-party sources. Kebabpizza (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a program at University of Wisconsin-Extension. The entire article looks to be based on primary sources (in a couple places copy/pasting) and insufficient other sources look to exist. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erzincan Soviet[edit]

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

No reliable sources to establish notability. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable transitional at best quasi-governmental entity. Quis separabit? 21:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly mention elsewhere as I see no immediate improvement and my searches found nothing particularly good but I should note that there's more information at Turkish Wiki so this may need familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but no information from academic sources. --Steverci (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability of even explanation of what subject is. --Steverci (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 North American winter[edit]

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

With the exception of El Niño, there is little to go off, although the ongoing El Niño may soon warrant an article separately. Winter has not started in North America just because a single storm has occurred in Alaska. It was hard enough for me to convince other editors to adopt the idea of winter season articles, and I decided to wait until activity had already started to before creating article for 2014-15 so as to avoid starting out with a stub with bad and inconsistent formatting. There won't be official forecasts for a good month, and winter itself won't begin for several weeks after that in most areas. This article is unneeded, and it will amount to little more than speculation. The previous season's article wasn't created until December 21 and we survived without it, so I believe an article full of little more than speculation for multiple months is not of benefit to the encyclopedia. I am not making the claim that the topic will not become notable. I am saying it is clearly too early. Having an article two to two-and-a-half months in advance of anything of significance is WP:Too soon. If you think the El Niño is significant, maybe create an article for that, but at the current time, this subject is not of significance. When I first proposed the concept of North American winter articles, this was the very sort of thing I was trying to avoid. The average storm is not of significance; only all the storms together are enough to establish unquestionable significance. To create this article when there have been no storms and will be no storms for months is in contradiction with the proposal I originally spent so much time working out, with the winter storm events (especially the notable ones) being the points from which the seasonal articles receive their own notability. Dustin (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative might be to create a draft. It doesn't matter a huge amount where, so long as there is a way for people to know where it is. I think I created a draft somewhere a few weeks ago although I can't recall at the moment. Either way and regardless of where this hypothetical draft would be located, creating a draft wouldn't be as bad an alternative in my opinion. Dustin (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears most of the stuff like this is people trying to pad out their article creation numbers. Yes, WP:TOOSOON, also WP:OR. It's an encyclopedia, we cover settled events not future ones.--Savonneux (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON, without prejudice against recreation in December — it isn't even fall 2015 yet as of today, let alone winter, so there's no reason on earth why we would already need this to exist now. If it's really important to the interested editors to have a preparatory article in place in advance of the commencement of winter, then they can do that in user or draft space. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Snow? In Alaska? Well I'll be. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Winter is Coming, but it's not here yet. shoy (reactions) 14:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:TOOSOON. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jegulja[edit]

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

The subject does not seem to meet any criteria of WP:BAND. I dont think they have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Hitro talk 20:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do not agree with user HitroMilanese. The band is active and their respective members are musicians with previously well know bands for example, the ex member played in the band Lene Kosti, one of the current guitarist play in the band Uroš and another one had played in a band called Carnaval which is currently one of the biggest stoner band in Slovenia. Of course it may not be pop music that Jegulja plays, but the band gets only good reviews. Even the main Slovenian concert organizer Kiborg Spužva Buking vouch for these guys. Also anyone at Metelkova can vouch for them. Please read, check the link in the Notes paragraph from the article. And Slovenian radio Radio Študent (radio student) made a report from their latest concert when they were opening for the band called Philm at club Gromka. Here is the link http://radiostudent.si/glasba/r%C5%A1-recenzija/philm-jegulja WikiUserYear2015 22:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiUserYear2015 (talk • contribs) User:WikiUserYear2015 is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.
Note- I have formatted and added the word keep before WikiUserYear2015's comment. Assuming the user is new to AfD discussion and wanted to cast a keep vote. The discussion previously looked like this. Hitro talk 20:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable band, no chart positions, no coverage, the sources are blogs, trivial mentions and primary pieces, fails all criteria of WP:NBAND Kraxler (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~You can't vote twice. User named Kraxler said that band fails all criteria of WP:NBAND, where he is wrong in the first bullet point of the same rule. Slovenian radio called Radio Študent is a radio that covers everything from politics and news to articles and music. The source is thus reliable, non-trivial in Slovenia and is independent of the musicians themselves. This is an online version of print media and everything was aired on the radio. And They also have played in Ukraine, Lviv at Electric meadow festival which gave them recognition abroad. WikiUserYear2015 17:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiUserYear2015 (talk • contribs)

That's a single review of a concert where Jegulja played as opening act for a bigger band, as far as I understand it. A single source can not establish notability, the guideline required multiple sources. Kraxler (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better signs of improvement and this isn't surprising, my searches also found nothing good with the best being these links. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note Some of you failed to notice the guideline 6. Rok Večerin played in the band called Lene Kosti which has it's own wikipedia page and the name of the musician is well notable. https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lene_kosti. And there is a band member named Jan Kozel which played in the band Carnaval which also has it's own wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnaval_%28band%29. He also released 2 more important albums and all musicians have historz of more than a few years, performing. WikiUserYear2015 18:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiUserYear2015 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Jackson (artist)[edit]

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

Not sure this artist meets the lowest bar of WP:GNG, she won a "People's Choice" award in a local exhibition and had a poem published. She has also featured in a television programme (though I'm not sure the TV channel is widely watched). Seems to have been written by a single issue editor and much of the biographical info is unsourced. Time for it to go? Sionk (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Good call, @Sionk. Thanks. Quis separabit? 21:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is clearly a vanity page created by her or an admirer. Does not meet GNG, ENT, ARTIST, AUTHOR, et al. Quis separabit? 21:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as unfortunately I found no better links than this and this. Feel free to draft and userfy until coverage is bettter, SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Japanese supercentenarians#Gengan Tonaki. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gengan Tonaki[edit]

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

No evidence, in either Japanese or English, of meeting WP:N's requirements of non-trivial coverage in multiple, third-party sources. All of the sources are either trivial mentions of his longevity records or obituaries, which is not sufficient to meet the criteria. Since past precedent has established that being the oldest "X" is not sufficient in and of itself for a stand-alone article, any encyclopedic information can be (and is) included on one of Wikipedia's longevity-related lists. Canadian Paul 19:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Japanese supercentenarians#Gengan Tonaki. If you remove the unsourced information from the main article you are left with nothing more than the sentence in this section. CommanderLinx (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect obviously as there's not much for separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Japanese supercentenarians. Insufficient in-depth coverage to justify a self-standing article like this. --DAJF (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Lennon's Landing on Alpha 46[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Almost the whole text in the article is original research about plot inconsistencies. ColinFine (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I created the article a few years ago when I was relatively new to Wikipedia and looking back on it now, it doesn't meet the notability guidelines. On the other hand I don't really see how the concern over original research weighs in the deletion decision. Those two paragraphs about plot inconsistencies were added by a third editor, who might be able to source them, and until/unless s/he does then they should definitely go, however such a removal can be easily done and so it shouldn't affect the rest of the stub. benzband (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent in-depth coverage (ref #2 contains a well-written summary, but is a marketing site). I added the film to List of short films however, based on ref #2 for more info. GermanJoe (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I cannot find anything that resembles a notable mention. There's no way a 15-minute film should have an article unless it really is notable. RoseL2P (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shelbourne Development Group[edit]

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

No notability except for the Chicago Spire failed project, which already has an article. So does the group's founder, who has also engaged in other companies. Originally written by Single Purpose Account, presumably with COI. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable (WP:GNG) and quite probably a product of paid editing by a WP:SPA apparently no longer active. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete for now as my searches found nothing better than a few Books results. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vladislavs Gutkovskis[edit]

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

This footballer is not notable per WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played in any WP:FPL. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Korail Class 200[edit]

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

This is basically machine translated nonsense, suggest WP:TNT as the only way to create a decent article would be to start from scratch Jac16888 ^Talk 16:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sawol (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - There isn't one sentence in this entire article that makes any sense!, I think Blowing it up and starting over is the best thing for this mess of an article!. –Davey2010^Talk 23:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of unaccredited institutions of higher education. Courcelles (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pebble Hills University[edit]

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

No indicia of notability. Could not find any reliable independent secondary sources. Note, article was prodded and then undeleted by request at WP:REFUND, discussion here. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of unaccredited institutions of higher education#P and fully protect the redirect. Only possible notability is as a "diploma mill" that has received some attention from governments on two continents. Just the two sources I found weren't enough to push it over WP:SIGCOV but if other references can be found, then it might qualify and I might change my recommendation to "keep - and monitor with vigilance". The existing article history may prove useful in expanding the target of the redirect, so there is no need to delete it if the redirect is fully protected. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and full protect. The description in List of unaccredited institutions of higher education is sufficient, and contains the only information that would make this school marginally notable. Not enough for a stand-alone article though. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as my searches found absolutely nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To be honest, this is one of the rare instances that I don't know what to do. I tried to copyedit the stub, and I removed nonsense and unverifiable claims. I'll go along with consensus, whatever that may be. Bearian (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow ~~creep~~ keep. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creepypasta[edit]

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

A lot of the sources look unreliable including [16]. The source [17] is not independent. The source [18] is a dead link. Unless the information that doesn't appear in any of the remaining reliable sources gets removed, I don't think this article belongs in Wikipedia. Even if it does get removed, the remaining information might be too short to have an article of its own and might be better to merge into List of Internet phenomena#Other phenomena. Blackbombchu (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Blackbombchu (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep, as a lot of the other sources are solidly reliable: the New York Times, AV Club, TIME. Meets WP:GNG as a notable subject and has enough examples explainable with references that "might be too short" doesn't seem like a reason for deletion. Googling the headline of the dead NYT link shows that it's now here, and writes about the phenomenon in depth. The article also cites an explanation in TIME Magazine, and an AV Club source which explains the term and mentions mainstream adoption of it, including a planned short film series Clive Barker’s Creepy Pasta.--McGeddon (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep The valid references from the previous AFDs are still there and make this article meet WP:GNG nothing in terms of notability have changed since the previous AFD. Just because you found 3 out of 16 references which may not be reliable does not make the entire article non notable and is not a deletion criteria, nor is "I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia" WP:IDONTLIKEIT.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. I made a mistake and nominated it for deletion because I saw that the result of the first nomination was delete and didn't see the second or third nomination before I nominated it. See Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 18#Have Afd deletion log appear in first deletion nomination of an article after a second nomination gets made. Blackbombchu (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per those above. Blackbombchu, did you not even bother to look at the talkpage (where every AFD is listed in exactly the place they're supposed to be) before diving in and nominating this? Unlike some of Wikipedia's internet meme articles, which are dubiously sourced waffle of highly questionable notability (I see Polandball has reappeared), this genuinely is a well-documented phenomenon. ‑ iridescent 16:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know talk pages of articles that have been nominated before showed the nomination log. It won't happen again that I nominate an article for deletion without first looking to see if its talk page has that log. Blackbombchu (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfDing an article for having unreliable sources when its opening paragraph contains the sentence "According to TIME magazine, the genre had its peak audience in 2010 when it was covered by The New York Times." suggests a misunderstanding of how notability works. You say in your nomination that "Unless the information that doesn't appear in any of the remaining reliable sources gets removed, I don't think this article belongs in Wikipedia." - an article having a mix of both reliable and unreliable sources is not a reason to delete the article, it's at most a reason to delete the unreliable sources and the statements they support. --McGeddon (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment while there are lots of passing mentions, there does not appear to be significant coverage of the actual subject. if i have missed them, can someone point them out? What little coverage there is of the subject appears to be limited by WP:NEO and WP:DICDEF-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the NYT article pushes it straight across WP:N on its own pretty much; it demonstrates straight away that this is a topic which the mainstream media are taking seriously. Even if nothing but the NYT article and the Time article existed, that would be "multiple independent non-trivial coverage in reliable sources" right there. ‑ iridescent 17:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see anything beyond WP:NEO and WP:DICDEF "its one of a million memes on the internet spreading urban legends." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per the reasons above and the reasons on the previous AfD. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable subject, and Blackbombchu should be reminded that AFD is not cleanup. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Article/subject passes GNG, As noted above AFD isn't a clean up solution. –Davey2010^Talk 18:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notability is clearly demonstrated by the sources, but point of order; you can't vote "snow keep". WP:SNOW is not in itself a deletion rationale but rather a determination that the consensus is unanimous and unlikely to change. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nobody is using SNOW KEEP as a rationale, they voting with it. All votes have been Keep and we are asking that the next passing admin or non involved editor close this pointless AFD as SNOW KEEP. The nominator has already acknowledged this AFD was an error and there no outstanding delete votes. That seems to be exactly what WP:SNOW is about.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Virgin Radio. Courcelles (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Radio Dubai[edit]

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

Article created in 2010. No Sources, No markup, Single sentence. Organization does exist but no categories. Nothing. scope_creep 15:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Restore redirect to Virgin Radio and protect as my searches simply found nothing better than this and the usual links with browser. Inviting TheRedPenOfDoom for comment. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by FiendYT (talk • contribs) 05:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of airport IATA codes-A[edit]

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

Written like a handbook and un-encyclopaedic.-- Action Hero Shoot! 15:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, useless WP:LISTCRUFT, most codes don't have a discernable alphabetic "origin", because all the letters in the name were taken already... Kraxler (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is simply unnecessary and unlikely of improvement (a little too complex title to likely be searchable unless for a familiar viewer). SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listcruft, as per above. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic and in nearly all cases unlikely to be sourced. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Simoudis[edit]

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

Failed google test. I dream of horses (T) @ 14:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 14:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 14:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was re-edited and corrected. I would like to resubmit for consideration. Juliette Lauber (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources in the article are either connected to the subject, or not in-depth, or trivial mentions, or don't mention the subject, no claim of notability in the article anyway, a graphic designer, well, there must be thousands of them, web searches turn up more advertising, directories, and social media, fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better than a few results at Google Books. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article's been sourced and improved since nomination, Consensus is to Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prathima Devi[edit]

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

I'm not sure if Prathima is notable. I dream of horses (T) @ 14:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 14:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 14:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this source [[19]] which does discuss her as important to the Kannada film industry. Have added and rewritten the article. Starring in many notable films such as Jaganmohini. Kannada film actors especially older ones will be difficult to find English sources on. She is also mentioned on 24 pages in the Encylopaedia of Indian Cinema. [[20]] Cowlibob (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cowlibob's reference from Hindu is quite sufficient to prove notability of this actress of 1950s. I won't be surprised to not see online English references of her. And there definitely are references in Kannada offline forms. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if actually notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shielding lotion[edit]

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

Clear problems with promotional tone, lack of notability, and bloat. This topic warrants at most a mention in lotion. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Makes no claim of notability; fails WP:GNG; likely meets WP:CSD#G11, unambiguous advertising or promotion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current article is unacceptable and although my searches found results to confirm this product's existence, there were none for better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears a bit too promotional in nature with inherent problematic features to the content stylistic presentation. — Cirt (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As far as the vandalism goes, I know where my semi-protect button is, and am going to use it. Courcelles (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homer G. Lindsay, Jr.[edit]

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

No reliable sources indicating this person is notable-- also this article is continually vandalized by editors claiming that this person's death was a judgment from God. Better to simply not have it, I think. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There was one source, here, it was not in a ref tag though, which I fixed. The entire article seems to based of this one source. I'm leaning towards delete at the moment if no more sources can be found. — Strongjam (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a second ref for date of his death, which was unsourced. I can't find much else in reliable sources. Seems his church was notable, but I don't see enough for a biography.— Strongjam (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to First Baptist Church of Jacksonville where he is mentioned as my searches found no better signs of improvement aside from Books links. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Vandalism is a poor reason to delete an article, especially if it is vandalism by a single user. St Anselm (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that one account is now unable to edit anymore and appeared to be a SPA anyway (they also used an IP before the account). With that also said, this has existed since February 2006 but has never gotten much improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just in Google Books there seemed to be enough significant coverage to pass the notability threshhold, though everything was snippet view. But the obituaries certainly provide the coverage needed, and when someone gets called "one of the great soul-winners of all Christian history", that's probably a fair indication of notability. I don't know why the Baptist Press obit wasn't there before, but I've added it in now. St Anselm (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep leading metropolitan daily did not just run an obit, it ran article about impact of his death, Here: [21] ; pre-obit news bulletin on his death Jere: [22]. And as per StAndelm.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as is our normal practice in marginal biographies where the subject expresses a clear preference against inclusion. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northie[edit]

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

This article is about myself and I wish to have it deleted due to untrue information and privacy concerns ALN070 (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northie

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Laing[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable individual. PROD rv. Quis separabit? 13:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, none of the sources say anything about her being a notable writer, and Google only reveals another Sara Laing (born 1955) as an author. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply found no signs of improvement and even Newspapers Archive found results for someone else apparently. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seagull PHP Framework[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable software - Standard searches do not reveal enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Previous AFD in 2012 closed as no consensus -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable; no books, no independent web site presence. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As with the last discussion, and the published books 1 and 2 On further investigation, both these 'books' are from Wikipedia articles. Change to abstain. Greenman (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 08:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as my searches found a few results at News, Books and browser but nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Griffin (British Army soldier)[edit]

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

Delete: article about a former British soldier known solely for accusations and comments regarding the "War on Terror", which do not appear to have been adjudicated or confirmed. Notability tagged since 2010. Quis separabit? 12:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as my searches found results at News, Books and browser but nothing that also convinced of better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity page. I checked the refs; Ref 1 doesn't mention him. Ref 2 is a 404 page. Refs 3-6 mention his departure from the army which is just news. Ref 7 doesn't mention him. Ref 8 isn't a reliable source. Szzuk (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - limited coverage mostly related to one event, so non-notable per WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG as far as I can see. He is mentioned briefly at List of Iraq War resisters already but potentially some of the information from this article might be included there, mindful of WP:UNDUE. Anotherclown (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tania Peitzker[edit]

The result of this discussion was 'delete'. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Per no original research. Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

East-West dichotomy in international relations[edit]

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

Notable topic, but article seems to be entirely original research. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure where the distinction is here between this and East-West dichotomy, which is inherently about international relations. If there is sourced content to be added, I believe it should be in the primary article, which is not so large as to require a split. However, I have to agree that what we have here reads like original research, and it is direly in need of sourcing if it is to be kept anywhere. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems East-West dichotomy is mostly about cultural differences between Europe/North America and East Asia, while this article is more about the East/West divide associated with the Cold War. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Comment~~ - it is a bit strange that East-West dichotomy makes no mention of cold war era Eastern Bloc-Western Bloc divide. On other hand, it is really questionable if separate article is needed here, especially considering that almost whole text is lacks sourcing currently.--Staberinde (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally hesitant to support deletion, as there was possibility that original creator would soon add the needed sources, but reading discussion here this doesn't seem to be the case.--Staberinde (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is entirely orignian research and reads like a paper for a lower division IR class. It has a specific thesis that the E/W can be seen through membership in international organizations and then proceeds, without sources, to try to demonstrate this. This is the definition of what we do not do at Wikipedia. Since there are no sources that demonstrate that the Cold War bi-polarity and the post Cold War alignment of the international system is referred to, significantly, in the literature as "the East-West dichotomy" there is no reason to preserve the article title. Jbh ^Talk 18:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Although the article was nominated for deletion, the decision needn't necessarily be - to delete or not delete. Contributors have pointed out some problems with the article, namely style and lack of sources, but I'm not sure that this alone justifies scrapping the whole article. I would argue, that at the very least, the tables themselves are of interest and very useful in any discussion of East-West dichotomy at the institutional level. For this reason alone the article should remain, probably in a reedited form. I welcome your suggestions or ideas on this, and thank you for the comments you've provided so far. --Mrodowicz (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the entire thing reads like original research. We do not do that here. Without sources there is no evidence that the topic, as defined, is even notable. The East-bloc/West-bloc divide is typically discussed in IR in the context of Balance of power with the break up of the Soviet Union leading to a transition from bipolarity to either a multi-polar system or a hegemonic one. It is not, as far as I know, discussed in the same context as Global-North/South or Centre-Periphery is in Dependency theory. If the article was written, as it should have been, with secondary reliable sources which were then used to create a tertiary source (What Wikipedia is) then those sources should be cited in the article because without doing so the article is either a copyright violation or worse plagiarism. If it is entirely the product of your own knowledge, analysis and synthesis then it simply does not belong in the encyclopedia. Jbh ^Talk 14:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jbhunley, thanks for your comments. So far as I can tell, our positions on this may not necessarily be as far apart as they might seem. I've already indicated in my comment above, albeit vaguely, how the article might be reedited to alleviate some of the concerns mentioned. I will elaborate on this further:

Delete from the article all reference to Cold War bipolarity/tripolarity and its relation to the present state of affairs, and focus instead on E/W dichotomy in the context of post-Cold War era institutions. This should go some way towards eliminating the sense of original research, analysis and synthesis you allude to.
Rescind from the latter half of the article, any points which might be construed as constituting original research.
The remainder will constitute the reedited article, which will hopefully be a more satisfactory outcome to all parties involved in the discussion.

Your thoughts on the process briefly outlined above? --Mrodowicz (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrodowicz: what you seem to be failing to get is the topic and content are secondary issues that can only be addressed after you have citations. Please read our prohibition of original research. You must have reliable sources which are cited to verify both the notability of the topic and the content of the article. Most particularly all of the assertions and conclusions must be supported by individual sources with no independent synthesis or analysis done on your part. Please see our policy against synthesis.

I recognize you have done a lot of hard work putting together the article but as it stands it is not appropriate material for Wikipedia because it makes assertions in Wikipedia's voice which are unsubstantiated by sources or references. What you need to do is:

Find some source material that discusses the topic you are interested in.
Read it.
Write an article summarizing what the sources say
Cite the references you summarized.

Think more 'high school book report' than 'university seminar'. We summarize, we do not analyze or synthesize. It is great if you want to learn about a new subject but can be frustrating for people who want to express their own thoughts on a topic. I hope this makes my objections to this article more clear. Cheers. Jbh ^Talk 13:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's pretty clearly stated, User:Jbhunley. :) Wikipedia exists to neutrally and in due-proportion summarize what reliable sources say about notable subjects. If it cannot be directly and specifically cited to a reliable source, it does not belong on Wikipedia. I'd like to note that in the absence of sources that make this suitable for Wikipedia, it might have a home at one of our sister projects that is more open to university seminars. :) Specifically, this might make an interesting course of study at Wikiversity or a section of a Wikibook. I say might, because I am not deeply familiar with their policies. I have done some work at Wikiversity in basic course material (elementary algebra), but I don't know what their criteria may be for more advanced material. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jbhunley & Moonriddengirl, thank you for your comments, and for alerting me to these other sites. I respect your positions on this. However, I can’t help feeling that my article is being singled out in a somewhat arbitrary fashion – being required to live up to the highest WP standards, with the bulk of WP articles being subjected to far less scrutiny. If we were all so keen to apply the strictest possible standards to all WP articles, we’d probably find that up to 1/4 of the total output would disappear, much to the detriment of the site. The guidelines are primarily there to prevent abuse, and keep out junk-articles, not out of a need to conserve space or create the maximum number of obstacles to what can be included.

This article is not rocket science - in fact it is almost childishly simple, yet it is constantly being suggested that the article is full of analysis and synthesis. I’ve already conceded that the first part of the article relating to Cold War etc. can be scrapped, whilst retaining the bulk of the article following the sub-title “21st century”. Having done so, I would like to CHALLENGE my fellow contributors to point out where all these alleged instances of analysis and synthesis are present. I’m hard-pressed to find a single instance of genuine analysis or synthesis, in the suggested amended form of the article.

As I’ve just said – it’s a very simple article, which can be easily summarised in a few points:

a. There exists such a thing as the ‘East-West dichotomy’.

b. There exists such a thing as the ‘East-West dichotomy’ in international relations.

c. There is some evidence of the E-W dichotomy in international institutions.

d. The following institutions are generally perceived as being western institutions

e. The following countries are members of these western institutions

f. The following institutions are generally perceived as being non-western or eastern institutions

g. The following countries are members of these non-western or eastern institutions

h. Some countries are not members of any of these institutions, and these countries are as follows...

i. Summing up/concluding remarks

THAT’S IT!

Where is the originality? In fact, it’s all so boringly unoriginal! Yet somehow, I’m being made to feel that I’ve undertaken some gargantuan task of major research (or worse, plagiarised from somewhere else), and that I’m posting the results here for all the world to see. I’ve asked my fellow contributors to make suggestions or amendments, if you have cause for concern with any particular aspects of the article, which we could work on editing. Unfortunately most of the feedback I’ve received so far has been in the form of negative remarks phrased in abstract terms, based on the strictest interpretation of WP rules, with barely any concrete remarks in relation to the content of the article itself. --Mrodowicz (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrodowicz: Where did this statement in the article come from? "In the 21st Century, the East-West dichotomy is present in the field of international relations, and remains an important division, in the international arena.^{[citation needed]} The East-West dichotomy, can be contextualised within the framework of modern political, economic and military institutions.^{[citation needed]} The characteristics of these can be traced back to the early post-WWII era, concurrent with the onset of the Cold War.^{[citation needed]}" Do yo have a reliable source you can cite for that claim or did you come up with that thesis yourself? If you do not have a source that makes the same claim then it can not be in the encyclopedia because of our policy forbidding original research and if must be removed. Let me quote the opening of WP:V

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

and more specificly WP:PROVEIT

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

Since that statement defines the subject of the article unless you can support it with citations to reliable sources there can be no article. Does that make more sense to you? I added {{citation needed}} for each part that needs a reference. You also need to find a source that says those facts taken together are important and not just a collection of facts per WP:SYNTHJbh ^Talk 14:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Added material Jbh ^Talk 14:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hocle and Stoty[edit]

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

I personally feel that this article fails to meet WP:GNG. I am also nominating the following related pages because they may also fail to meet WP:GNG:

The subject of these articles are short series where only a few installments were made, and are not as important or noteworthy as the longer shows that formed the meat of the Nick Jr. block. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Many Disney Junior short series (such as Go, Baby!, Tasty Time with ZeFronk, Where Is Warehouse Mouse?, Shanna's Show, Can You Teach My Alligator Manners?, Nina Needs to Go!, etc.) are about the same length (and run) as these programs. It does not matter how short the length of an episode is, they are still TV series and deserve to be noted.

You should note that they are not all "short series," they are short-form series, meaning that they are shorter than eleven minutes. A Pup Grows Up had twenty or so installments on the Sprint mobile application, but I can only find video clips of three. Same goes for Mighty Bug 5 and Hocle and Stoty, which I know had more episodes than what is recorded but since pages cannot include original research, only confirmed episode numbers are given.

For Hocle and Stoty specifically, its age has caused information on it to be hard to find. However, it was featured as a museum exhibit, which is certainly more than can be said for most TV shows.

One problem that might be making you feel that they fail notability tests is that most articles centered on them have since been deleted, as they are at least ten years old each; using the Wayback Machine may be helpful if you want more information on them.

Squiddaddy (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia has articles on TV shows that never even broadcast a single episode (see List of television series canceled before airing an episode), and seeing as these shows were broadcast on a huge channel like Nickelodeon and some (judging by Mighty Bug 5's references) even got their own NickJr.com pages, they are definitely notable. I could see some concern about a never-aired pilot, but these shows were aired. I don't understand how run-time comes into play whatsoever, it does not matter; that's like saying an 11-minute program is less notable than a 21-minute one. Derbundeskanzler (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deanne Panday[edit]

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

Unable to verify the claims made on the article. Fails to meet WP:AUTHOR. Reliable sources are just passing mentions. The Telegraph doesn't even mention her! ITV source is about Shah Rukh Khan. Hellbrix25 (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found results especially News but nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The various reprinted press releases in the references are essentially worthless for notability The contributor has now been blocked for socking on another bio article. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IncentiveWorks[edit]

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

Brief stub about a convention with no strong evidence of passing WP:EVENT; the article, as written, just asserts that the thing exists and parks it on two primary sources with no evidence of any reliable source coverage. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although my searches found results here, here, here and here and the Highbeam link say it's "Canada's leading trade show for the meetings and incentives industry" but, in that case, I would've expected better coverage thus there's not much to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The largest trade show for so specialized an industry would not be expected to generate much press, and it seems that it hasn't done so. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Osagie Alonge[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:CREATIVE. Sources are self-published and non-reliable. The article is promotional too. Perhaps too soon! Hellbrix25 (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete obviously fails WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Clearly meets the WP:GNG. Article revamped as per WP:HEYMANN i have added more sources about the subject. Also keep in mind this tag was added by a blocked user This account is blocked as a sock further to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts, based on both technical (CheckUser) and behavioural/editing pattern evidence. JazzyB07 (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article was nominated for deletion by a blocked user is irrelevant. I don't see how this one can be kept per WP:HEYMANN when it obviously fails WP:GNG. None of the sources you provided are reliable. They are self-published materials that cannot establish notability. The truth is, the guy is not just notable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the added sources are self-published. Can somebody add something better? Bearian (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

added some more sources and also linked his name in Nigerian Entertainment Today as he was NET’s famed Editor-in-Chief and Assistant Manager in 2014. The name was there already but it was not linked to this page. JazzyB07 (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: threshold for notability not reached; fails GNG, ENT, .... Quis separabit? 21:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : as per my search on google news and WP:GNG also the sources provided (from 3 to 11 then 13,16,17 and 18) doesn't seems self promotional. MannTinsa (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator. MannTinsa (talk · contribs · count) and JazzyB07 (talk · contribs · count) are Confirmed socks of each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Islamic Organisation of India[edit]

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

Lacks third party reliable sources, It has only self published sources ScholarM (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep India related article can often have issues. However, source can be found for this organisation such as http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/nothing-incriminating-against-girls-islamic-organisation-say-cops/ AusLondonder (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On google news, they had 7 articles mentioning their activities. I may not understand this 100%, but they meet WP:N. The coverage is more than just incidental and meets WP:ORGDEPTH. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islami Jamiat-e-Talibat[edit]

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

Lacks RS and non notable ScholarM (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hmm, it's very imaginable good sources aren't going to be easily accessible and the best results I found were this, this and this and I honestly would've expected better improvement since starting in August 2005 (not editing again until PRODded in April 2006). SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge a portion into parent organisation Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan. sami ^talk 23:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

José Arraño Acevedo[edit]

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

Non-notable local newspaper journalist and self-learned "historian" who wrote two non-notable books. Appears to be famous only in his home town Pichilemu (pop. 13,000). Sietecolores (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arraño was not just a "local newspaper journalist", but a member of most Chilean regional and national newspapers, you can do a simple search on the National Library of Chile catalog, put there his name, and there will appear articles by him on Las últimas Noticias, El Mercurio, La Discusión of Chillán, La Prensa Austral, El Rancagüino, among many other publications. This nomination is motivated by bias against Pichilemu-related material, and should be speedily closed. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having books indexed in the National Library of Chile catalog does not make one author notable. All books published in Chile are registered there. Can´t see anything notable in having been a journalist at the newspapers you mention. The newspapers does not confer notability to their journalist as McDonnald does not confer notability to its exployees. -Sietecolores (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are purposedly distorting things, I urge you to stop such behavior. The National Library has some of his articles indexed separately from books and magazines, because the Library has a Critical References Archive. Such archive contains several articles about him, his books, (written by known Chilean literary authors), and there they are, publicly available. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So where are the "articles about him" and "his books"? Once we get these alleged documents on the table we can see if they can confer him notability or not. Sietecolores (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an article without any encyclopedic relevance. --Keysanger (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hold I am very uncertain as to his individual notability, and cannot find anything of significance written by him, alas. Give the writer of the BLP a week - but if nothing is solid by then, delete with sadness. Collect (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly I am not up for expanding or referencing the article myself, but I can help finding those references. Here are some reviews published about himself and his books: El Rancagüino, Diario VI Región (ago 27 2003), VI Región (again), VI Región (once again), Rancagüino (again), VI Región..., VI..., La Prensa of Curicó, VI..., Rancagüino (this one is written by a former deputy of Chile, Esteban Valenzuela), La Prensa of Curicó again, Cauce of Chillán, El Magallanes of Punta Arenas, La Región, Rancagüino, VI Región, La Región (this one about his radio programme), La Región (1994), Diario Renacer of Angol, La Mañana of Talca, Rancagüino, Región, and many others... most of these were authored by regionally/nationally-relevant writers Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seeing that all of the articles that I looked at were from regional newspapers, i did searches in as many of the national Chilean papers where I could find a search box, and consistently got zero. Can someone comment on policy around regional-only notability? I honestly don't know how to judge this - he seems very important regionally, but not at a national level. Is this a common pattern in Chile? Does it have to do primarily with what resources are available to us here online? LaMona (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The fact that someone has bothered to compile two books collecting some of his articles suggests to me that in Chile his work is regarded as notable. The fact that the books were widely reviewed implies the same. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, could you give some examples of "widely reviewed"? I only saw reviews in local sources, which would not meet the terms of "widely" AFAIK. Thanks, LaMona (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocky Bot[edit]

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

Three refs all from Nintendo life a very niche source and not robust or independent. No evidence of any notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

all i could fine where reviews, and NWR's List of Downloads (which included Blocky Bot) other then that, if Delete or redirect then im all fine with that. Aozz101x (Talk)

Delete - [23] is the only reference on a reliable publisher that I could find, and its only a listing. Other publishers are, as Nom stated, very niche and nintendo specific. Fails GNG. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as I had the same results and although this is an interesting article, there's nothing to suggest better change. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - SIGCOV in WP:VG/S-vetted reliable sources:

Plenty of news/previews from NintendoLife 1, 2, 3
NintendoLife full review
NWR full review

Also reviews from:

FNintendo review (undiscussed non-English source which still looks reliable)
GameGravy review (undiscussed but author reliability could be plausible)
Honest Gamers review (previously undiscussed site but author reliability is plausible, has written reviews for other RS sites)
8WorldNews review (author reliability is evident, also an author for confirmed RS NintendoWorldReport)

This is plenty to satisfy WP:GNG. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Salv's sources, specifically NintendoLife, Nintendo World Report, and Honest Gamers. Just barely enough to scrape by the WP:GNG in my opinion. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
nintendolife is considered a reliable source by WP:VG (please see WP:VG/S. What evidence do you have of a lack of independence? The site is not connected to the developer or publisher of the game and simply having Nintendo in its name does not make the site affiliated with Nintendo either.--174.91.187.135 (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is correct, the sources are independent from the game. Nintendo Life and Nintendo World Report's connection to Nintendo are like what Mac Life is to Apple Inc. or PC Gamer is to Personal computers. It defines the subject matter they cover, but has no actual affiliation or connection. Additionally, this game is neither developed or published by Nintendo to begin with, it merely appears on one of their video game consoles, so there's all sorts of issues with the nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proneeta Swargiary[edit]

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

Prod removed. Fails WP:BLP WP:ENTERTAINER. Being a contestant on a game show is not notable enough. Savonneux (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete searches on the engines produced zero hits to have anything to do with notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable just for being a contestant. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Thomas (American footballer)[edit]

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

A WP:A7 candidate. I could delete or redirect this myself, but I ask for the opinions of other editors. Should this article be deleted, or should it be WP:REDIRECTed to Birmingham Bulls (American football)? Shirt58 (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not finding significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. The article currently relies on sources that are not independent (e.g., self-published by the sport's governing body, BAFA, or the team) and/or that consist of routine game coverage (i.e., not focused on G. Thomas). These are insufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Based on my searches, G. Thomas doesn't appear sufficiently notable for a standalone article under WP:GNG or WP:NGRIDIRON. Cbl62 (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable amateur/semi-pro British player of American football. This subject presents an interesting challenge for American editors reviewing it for notability, because we are usually familiar with the leagues, conferences and teams of college and professional football players in the United States. It is, however, clear that the subject is not a player in a top-tier pro football league like the NFL or CFL, and BAFA's various tiers are on par with the "national" American football leagues in Australia, Austria, France and Germany -- which is to say, not nearly as competitive as Division I college football in the United States, and with a much, much smaller fan following. That's the background, and there is no applicable specific notability guideline for these amateur, semi-pro and lower tier pro players. That means they must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. The references for this article are a collection of sources from brief game summaries (no significant), the league and team websites (not independent), fansites, blogs, and even a sports photographer's website (not reliable). This case clearly demonstrates how a clever editor may stitch together as fairly detailed article from various online references and the subject still not be notable. Our concept of "notability" seeks to evaluate how widely known a subject is, using significant coverage in independent reliable sources as a proxy. Here, such coverage does not exist. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with what you've said above. Under the vague guideline WP:NGRIDIRON, the BAFANL should be considered a fully professional league, and as such this and many other players would be considered notable. There is a severe problem concerning the US bias that currently exists on en.wikipedia, especially within sports articles. This player clearly fails GNG, but that's exactly why we have GRIDIRON, which states players need to "have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in... any other top-level professional league". FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD reflect a prudent consensus that the BAFANL is not a "top-level professional league". The level of talent is not on par (or even close) with the Arena Football League, Canadian Football League, National Football League, American Football League, All-America Football Conference or United States Football League, which are the examples provided in the guideline of "top-level professional leagues". To this date, American football is primarily a North American sport, and I doubt there is a European league that would qualify as "top-level" as the phrase is used in WP:NGRIDIRON. Cbl62 (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FoCuSandLeArN: You're confusing the specific notability standard for American/Canadian football per WP:NGRIDIRON and that for association football/soccer per WP:NFOOTBALL. The specific guideline for American/Canadian football players is not defined by reference to "fully professional league," like association football/soccer, but by reference to players who have participated in one or more regular season games in specific top-tier, high-notability leagues such as the CFL and NFL (and several of the present NFL's predecessor leagues). Cbl62's description of the NGRIDRION guideline above is correct. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I was quoting NGRIDIRON verbatim. The question is what constitutes "any other" top-level professional league, for which I see no discussion here (alas AfD wouldn't be the appropriate venue) or elsewhere. I am pointing out the weaknesses presented by the guideline, I am not commenting as to whether BAFANL is or is not a professional league. We see this time and time again at AfD and AfC; we wouldn't if the guidelines were clearer. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as a football player since he fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Routine sports coverage and passing mentions do not meet [[WP:GNG]. The fact it's an autobiography is just the final straw.Jakejr (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find the lack of independent sources unimpressive.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Due to lack of participation, no prejudice if this would be taken to AFD again in a month or so. Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Dravid[edit]

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

My searches simply found nothing to suggest better sourcing and the best results I found were this. There are only two move targets one of them being Mogubai Kurdikar (which simply mentions he was a student) but this suggests sourcing may be archived and offline but that's not going to save the article at this moment and the article hasn't improved much (outside adding an infobox) since starting in July 2007. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For article based on/about India always see WP:INDAFD; the person have some coverage in various reliable sources see here. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edmonton Scottish[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The team has no RSes and none can be found. The team's league may be notable, but the team itself is not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alberta Major Soccer League, the league they play in; not independently notable but a possible search term. Giant Snowman 17:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played for the Canadian National Challenge Cup on multiple occasions in the last century, including 2012 [24] meeting WP:FOOTYN. Nfitz (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - several notable performances in a national competition indicate notability per WP:FOOTYN. Fenix down (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What a joke. Can you find independent coverage of that national competition even of this team participating in it? Fourth level soccer in Canada isn't even recognized so I'll save you the trouble. I'm going to find second division ice hockey teams in England and demand that because they play in a national competetion (where five people attend and no media coverage is given) be kept. You've all got your heads up your asses so far you can't think or shit straight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Independent coverage of that competition? There's coverage. Here's one from the most recent. [25] Nfitz (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg Lucania FC[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The team has no RSes and none can be found. The team's league may be notable, but the team itself is not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Manitoba Major Soccer League, the league they play in; not independently notable but a possible search term. Giant Snowman 17:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has played for the Canadian National Challenge Cup on many occasions, including winning the 1987 Canadian National Challenge Cup and 2000, meeting WP:FOOTYN. Also meets WP:GNG being the ranked as "most successful amateur soccer club in country" [26]. Nfitz (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Nfitz, performances in a national competition satisfy FOOTYN with the additional source indicating wider GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What a joke. Can you find independent coverage of that national competition even of this team participating in it? Fourth level soccer in Canada isn't even recognized so I'll save you the trouble. I'm going to find second division ice hockey teams in England and demand that because they play in a national competetion (where five people attend and no media coverage is given) be kept. You've all got your heads up your asses so far you can't think or shit straight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Independent coverage of that competition? There's coverage. Here's one from the most recent. [27] Nfitz (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arnoldo Vizcaíno[edit]

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

Undeveloped infra-stub since last December. This is not even dictionary-definition long. In addition, I cannot find evidence of the relevance of the person "described", not even in the eswiki version. —Fitoschido ^[shout_track] @ 7 September, 2015; 11:35

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Founder and former chairman of the Party of the Democratic Revolution chapter in Colima. Story in La Jornada here, multiple stories with significant coverage in Colima Noticias here, Diario de Colima here, etc.... I'm updating the article with info and sources. Vrac (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Whether this is a really short article, or whether there is enough info in this or the Spanish version, are irrelevant to whether he is notable or not. Boleyn (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Boleyn: I did never say the lenght had anything to do with notability. —Fitoschido ^[shout_track] @ 15 September, 2015; 13:05

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cap-Net UNDP[edit]

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

WP:TNT: this article is entirely written in the organisation's own jargon. Needs a full rewrite to become an encyclopedic article, if its topic is notable at all. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article is not good, but the organization is notable and worthy of having an entry in Wikipedia. Does it hurt to have this page here (with the hatnotes saying that it needs improvement)? EvM-Susana (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to draft & userfy but I'll have to go with delete for now as my searches simply found nothing to suggest better and more solid coverage aside from this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needs rewriting from scratch. When you do remember to include outside sources and not try to list the entire staff of the organization. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delette - Searches did not turn up anything to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Averre-Beeson[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines in my opinion. Would like comments/discussion regarding this subject. Has references to articles, but I still do not feel that this subject is encyclopaedic enough to have an article. Sheroddy (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely delete for now as although my searches found results such as this, this and this, there's nothing to suggest obvious better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. May have been the youngest secondary head at the time; certainly not the youngest ever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Cape Town. Courcelles (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smuts Hall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Second deletion discussion; first AfD was in 2006. Zero refs. Non-notable university residence. It is the job of the University to promote their non-notable facilities, not the job of a global encyclopedia. Not sure if this could be done as CSD:A7, noting that this is a residence hall, not an educational establishment

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with University of Cape Town. Quis separabit? 22:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barrington D. Parker[edit]

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

Delete - Not really much out there apart from that he was a judge and that he died. Pretty much it.Thursby16 (talk) 20:27, 7 September 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 September 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being a United States federal judge is enough to pass notability. Article needs improving and not deleting. JMHamo (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly keep as although I've haven't started searching, this would appear notable and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, US federal judges are notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to World Customs Organization. Courcelles (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WCO Columbus Programme[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure if this is notable especially universally rather locally (it seems it may be somewhat known locally in Columbus, Ohio) and the best results my searches found were this, this, this and this. There's no move target and the article has hardly changed since starting in August 2006. Pinging author Rsi73 and I would've also notified Stormbay but it seems they're not active. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to World Customs Organization. I certainly can't see enough to justify a standalone article, but there are enough passing mentions (mostly not local to Columbus, Ohio) over the intervening period in both SwisterTwister's searches and the standard ones to make it enough of a search term to justify a mention there. PWilkinson (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 15:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

T.S.V. 'Jan Pieter Minckelers'[edit]

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

Unsourced and not notable enough for inclusion Aparslet (talk) 22:05, 7 September 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 September 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete searches on the engines (except for Highbeam, which was down), returned zero results, except for a single mention on Books. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stockato[edit]

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

Does not satisfy general notability guidelines. Creator of the article appears to be the owner/founder of the company. May be a valid speedy deletion. Jujutacular (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jujutacular - there is nothing wrong if a creator of an article is an owner/founder of the company being covered, as it is just a technical matter. If I let an independent entity say a friend or a family member to update Stockato, would it be OK? According to the Wikipedia guidelines probably yes. What matters is not who updates a certain content, but what public references to the topic exist. In regards with Stockato there are references at the USPTO, Tradestreaming. and The Ben Gurion University of the Negev. Best, Uri K.

Further, look closely at the editing history - multiple editors edited Stockato over the past several years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartoun (talk • contribs) 13:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing better than some browser links and simply looking at the article shows the low amount of third-party coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Kanter[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:CREATIVE Derek Andrews (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better and mostly results for a David Kanter of technology. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Sandstein 18:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kharkiv[edit]

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

I and O are distinct sounds, both in Ukrainian and occasionally in English. I cannot see any reason that someone would search for Kharkiv or Karkiv by searching for Kharkov or Karkov. I will add Karkoff or Karkiff or Kack off if we have them. Si Trew (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep - withdrawn. GermanJoe (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard G. Smith (geographer)[edit]

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

Probably non-notable British geographer. Article was repeatedly CSDed and re-created by SPA account. Only few Google hits and the article itself has zero sources. Nominating it for AfD to allow a more in-depth discussion, and a hopefully final decision. GermanJoe (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - please disregard, article had a lengthy AfD discussion in 2010 (which I overlooked). GermanJoe (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please note that the infobox in the article on the university lists him as chancellor, not vice-chancellor as the (sole) source in this article indicates. Article is incredibly short and should be urgently expanded. Note that even if a subject meets WP:ACADEMIC, we cannot have an article if there are no sufficient sources to provide sourced content, regardless whether a subject is notable or not. Randykitty (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Moran (businessman)[edit]

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

fails WP:NACADEMICS OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 09:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: duplicate nomination header removed. GermanJoe (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep subject of the article obviously meet WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC#6 as Vice Chancellor of Queen's University Belfast. This nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator is not in anyway familiar with WP:ACADEMIC. Nominator, please familiarize yourself with basic policies and guidelines before nominating articles for deletion. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 02:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation: I recommend an early closure of this debate by any passing admin or non-admin in good standing to avoid a waste of time of participating editors. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 02:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The guy is probably notable, but the super-stub nature of the article no doubt led to this nomination. Would be nice if someone could expand it a bit, there is more sourcing available from what I can see.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Mahoney[edit]

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

We discussed this at WP:RFD#Matt Mahoney and it WP:SNOWballed as a retarget to the DAB at Matthew Mahoney. That is fine but I think wearing WP:TWOHATS we can just hatnote one to the other, which also should save us a disambiguation on one or the other but I assume neither is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But I will do the crosslinks after listing this cos someone else, if they disagree, can take em out. It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive. Si Trew (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Si Trew closed the Rfd discussion himself; his close was subsequently reverted. However, that discussion seems to have little to do with this one. This discussion was originally at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Mahoney but I moved it here for the benefit of the tools that automatically detect these things. Also worth noting is that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Mahoney (2nd nomination) exists, which I think is Si's good-faith error using the tool, and not meant to have been a separate discussion. This is the only time that this page has been nominated for deletion. My apologies (and on Si's behalf, unless he says otherwise) that this is confusing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:TWODABS requires that one or the other is the primary topic for the title. I don't think either of these stubs can make that claim. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No obvious candidate to be Primary Topic, so dab page is appropriate. PamD
Another note: one more error that I didn't catch. I have updated the links here to Matthew Mahoney which is the subject of this discussion. Matt Mahoney is still up at Rfd. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it'll be three entries if we include Matt Mahoney as a WP:DABMENTION from PAQ. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty clearly keep as there is no primary. Am I misunderstanding Si Trew or is he misunderstanding the guidelines? --Bejnar (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ordet är farväl[edit]

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 08:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It looks like this song didn't chart anyplace, and I fail to see any significant notability otherwise. I agree with Richhoncho and SwisterTwister. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, obviously notable song and article supports use of this title. Go to WP:RFD to discuss the redirect from "In other words". NawlinWiki (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Me to the Moon[edit]

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

Delete. In other words does not mean Fly Me to the Moon, so this is WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Mutatis Mutandis (essentially, the Latin for "In other words", or "other things changed around") is red, I think. I was trying just to look up the common English phrase to say, oh, in other words. I like the song and I like Frank, I like the Moon too, but this to me is just confusing. Si Trew (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. In the first place, this is the wrong venue. This is a very well-known song. As for renaming it, the article states this is the better known title, and that "Peggy Lee convinced Bart Howard to make the name change official", whatever that means. The Songwriters' Hall of Fame inducted it under this title as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jordan vs. Qiaodan[edit]

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

This is someone's personal view. As if a journalist writing a newspaper column. Action Hero Shoot! 15:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there could be a better-written article about the court case, but it is not clear that the court case is notable in itself. Perhaps a sentence or two in the Jordan or Nike articles would be more appropriate. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a free host for personal essays Kraxler (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath (American band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND: no label, no awards, etc... The trademark case that was argued as a reason to keep in the previous AFD should really be WP:BLP1E applied to a band. The Dissident Aggressor 19:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added the sources where requested and some additional ones as well. They include issue dates for magazines and cites for the book mentioned in the articleZoident (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Zoident — Zoident (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The band reformed in 2015. Shadow Kingdom Records and Divebomb Records are both reissuing the bands music. In addition, they played their first European concert as part of the Headbanger's Open Air fest in Hamburg, Germany this summer. Don Kaye was a New York based journalist in the 1980s and 1990s. He wrote for various music magazines including Kerrang. He selected the band's Words that Echo Fear demo as one of the ten best for 1988 in Kerrang. Zoident (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Zoident — Zoident (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It appears Zoident is related to the band's NN label - Zoid Recordings. The Dissident Aggressor 19:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article now includes specific issue dates for all the magazines listed. Moreover, additional citations were added for websites, including blabblermouth.net covering the band's reunion. The original author of AfD referenced the lack of label information. All record labels that have released the band's material are now listed, including past and current labels. Shadow Kingdom and Dovebomb Records are currently reissuing the band's music. Even the author of the Delete for now referenced that he or she found an article calling Aftermath pioneering. In the May 1999 issue of College Music Journal (CMJ) they refer to the band as "Aftermath a popular demo band from the 1980's...." on page 51 of that issue.

I believe the lack of specific citations has been resolved. The band's inclusion on Wikipedia should be confirmed. Furthermore, I have taken the appropriate steps to adhere to the neutral aspects of contributing to the article by relying on facts and third party sources. A quick google search for Aftermath Eyes of Tomorrow will reveal numerous articles on the band not referenced in the article and sites selling the band's music including iTunes and Amazon.2601:246:4300:7AFC:6CA0:FFAF:8576:8CB (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Zoident[reply]

Keep Multiple sources exist that aren't present on the article. See this for one. There are small reviews also. Combined with the sources already present, this article easily passes WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. The Undead Never Die (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I am unable to confirm that these are WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although the sources I found at Books, News and highbeam seem good and one of them said they were pioneering, it summarily comes to a still unsourced article. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You just admitted to finding reliable sources but still vote to delete? Why don't you add the sources to the article? The Undead Never Die (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demise of Eros[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability for bands. I'm not able to find any non-trivial published sources excluding things like discogs listings. The closest thing I can find to coverage of this band is an article about a different band releasing their debut album which mentions in passing that the guitarist used to play for this band.^[1] They don't appear to have charted, and the record label which released their 3 records is not considered a "major record label". Also, a note for the closing admin if this ends up being deleted there's also a redirect at Demise of Eros (band) that will need to be speedied under G8. Likewise if this ends up being kept, this was apparently a cut and paste move, so the article history at Demise of Eros (band) should be merged. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I opened this AFD Everymorning has found one additional source and added it to the article.^[2] It's behind a paywall, but from what I can tell it looks like a start. Just need a few more. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Mervis, Scott (25 June 2009). "Pittsburgh Calling: Alive in the Underground releases eclectic debut album". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 31 August 2015.
^ Jentzen, Aaron (23 August 2006). "Demise of Eros". Pittsburgh City Paper. Retrieved 31 August 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

Comment The change of Demise of Eros to Demise of Eros (band) was my fault. I thought there was no need for it to be titled, Demise of Eros (band), due to there not being another subject titled Demise of Eros. My mistake. --Metalworker14 (Yo) 18:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep The band is semi-notable or at least (if not already) marked as a stub. There is a possibility that I could find more references --Metalworker14 (Yo) 18:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as although the coverage could be better, this is probably some of the best a metal is going to get. My searches found nothing immediately better but I suppose the current coverage is acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 01:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Love Bites (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Love Bites (band)

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

This isn't notable at all!! Drlemon98 (talk) 20:53, 31 August 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 August 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Transclusion was partially created for Love Bites (without (band)). I fixed the links and removed the AfD tag from Love Bites (DAB page) GermanJoe (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete as my searches found nothing particularly good (best was this) and the chartings were likely the most notable thing. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:MUSIC criteria, sources provide sufficient information. Peter James (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Charted in top 20. Coverage in multiple independent reliable sources some of which have been added to the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Badlands (Halsey album). Courcelles (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost (Halsey song)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This is a non-notable individual song and promotional single by an artist who is only slightly notable anyway. It seems suitable to be mentioned in other articles about the artist but not to have an article of its own. Some of the references are just hype pages and links to the video. I am not sure how truly RS the rest are. DanielRigal (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or simply redirect to album as usual with non-notable songs. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect over to Badlands (Halsey album) given that the song isn't particularly notable outside of the context of the album CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to artist's album. Very little content/sources, only charted extremely lowly on one chart. Better shown as part of the album. Sergecross73 msg me 18:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 17:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Steelberg[edit]

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

This has been around a long time but the refs generally make no mention of Chad Steelberg, or at best as a peripheral mention. This is about the business he was involved him and not the man. No evidence of notability (other than he is rich) is demonstrated. On the basis of these refs which have been around since 2011, it appears to fail WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure by maybe simply delete as they are quite a bit of results here, here, here and here so you would think something here is notable but I'm not sure and it's likely simply a case of non-notability for them and simply coverage for companies they have now sold. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It looks like the companies that they're associated with are more notable then they are. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Founding notable companies is notable. Founding just one raises the question of whether the information about the founder should be incorporated into the articleo n the company,but when it's several, then there is no single place to redirect to and it warrants a separate article. see also the article on Ryan Steelberg; most of the refs there apply here also.(and, if this does get deleted, so do the problems) DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Murariu[edit]

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

The main problem with this article is that, aside from a video clip thrown in for good measure, essentially the entire text is based on the subject's own website, meaning the "independent sources" requirement is flagrantly flouted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; only substantial source I found is this. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Which, I might add, is an announcement for an upcoming exhibition - by definition not quite "independent of the subject". - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went through and removed over a dozen self-published references, as well as a couple of sections that were basically WP:Promotion. Not sure if it is keep or delete yet. Will keep an eye on the discussion here. New Media Theorist (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with Delete per nominator's comments.New Media Theorist (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moises Moisty Abreu[edit]

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

My searches found explicitly good aside from here and here and while I'm fluent with Spanish, these sources are passing mentions at best and there isn't even solid details of his 1997 Miami Championship. As an orphan, there's also no move target and there's simply nothing to suggest improving and keeping. Notifying author XK8ER and tagger Qwertyus. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: a possible move target is Moisty Skate and Family, i.e., turn this into an article about the man's business instead of the man. It might just barely satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH due to coverage of its demise. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: this article by El Nuevo Día is exclusively about him: [28] but to be honest I'm not sure if he passes WP:GNG. Regarding the park, that definitely passes GNG even though I believe it closed it doors. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find anything in the search engines to suggest this person meets the notability requirements. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Creepypasta#Candle Cove. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SEBTAW[edit]

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

Article about a seemingly fictional technology. The only source that I was able to find was an entry on a Wikia site. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 23:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From what I can tell, this is creepypasta that's being spread through wikis. Fine for wikia, but it doesn't belong here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, we even have a paragraph about this: Creepypasta#Candle Cove. I didn't notice that. So, maybe we should redirect this instead. You can read more about it here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Concur with NinjaRobotPirate. Non-notable minor plot element, as this Google search doesn't turn up any reliable sources, so redirect to where it receives a brief mention. Altamel (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie (Younger)[edit]

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

One of a whole bunch of fictional biographies from a small, relatively recent sitcom. Secondary sourcing is lacking--there seems to be no reason whatsoever to presume that this character needs to have their own article. I haven't yet looked through the history but I wouldn't be surprised is this isn't another walled garden, where every tidbit is given its own article in clear violation of WP:FART. Delete per GNG; there is no secondary sourcing for this subject that establishes notability. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the nominator says it all Kraxler (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don Aters[edit]

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

As you'll see from the history, I restored the previously sourced version but my searches found nothing to suggest further improvement (despite sources saying he's well known and such) with my best results here, here and here. Notifying still active editors FreeRangeFrog, Ironholds Paste and Jayron32 and notifying others Tbennert, WarthogDemon and thisandthem. This has existed since February 2008 but never with better improvement and I'm seeing any signs of it. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No assertion of notability in the article. --Slashme (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Desi Kalakaar. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Love Dose[edit]

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

Claims no notability. Youtube hits are not notable. Fails WP:NSONGS. PROD contested by an IP without giving any reason. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find a single reliable source to support the article. All those youtube hits and mp3 download sites are not enough to satisfy WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG. (see below) Jim Carter 05:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Carter: There are reliable sources have a look here. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Cutest Penguin! It's a really useful custom google search site for India related articles. And yes, there are plenty of news articles found, however, none speak about the song in depth. All of them says, "Love Dope is a song from the album Desi Kalakaar" which is not enough for a stand alone article. The song exists doesn't mean we should have an article on it. It's content forking. I better suggest to redirect the article to Desi Kalakaar. Jim Carter 18:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it does not have coverage in depth. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Desi Kalakaar. -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Monmouth County Library. Courcelles (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allentown NJ Public Library[edit]

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

Non-notable library, with only self published links provided. This could easily be merged in with Monmouth County Library Tinton5 (talk) 05:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Allentown, New Jersey or Monmouth County Library as the subject doesn't appear to be independently notable. Alansohn (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as it's unlikely there's enough for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Monmouth County Library: There may not be enough info for it to be notable on its own, but there has been coverage of the site's history recently for its 50th anniversary. There is certainly more info out there to be found, related to the three sources (thanks to Njjimf) I have just added to the article, which seem to be part of a five-part series covering the event. However, the info could be just as well presented as an "Allentown" section on the County Library page. 2macia22 (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, and also each library in that system could have a mention, too on that page. Tinton5 (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Normand[edit]

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

His IMDb credits don't amount to much other than writing Leon the Pig Farmer. A redirect there would be a second option. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 4 September 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) 02:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only source of information about the man himself seems to be his autobiography on IMDB. NYT has a review of this other film Dirty Laundry, which only mentions him and doesn't describe the film as anything special, either. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:32, 7 September 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) 05:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ayman El Aatar[edit]

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

Claimed to be a winner of the Arabic Pop Idol in 2004 , and that seems to be all. What follows is some song releases on YouTube. This does not seem to confer notability and fails WP:GNG having only a single ref for a single event. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - It's likely the country and language barriers here but my searches found nothing good so there's not much to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 00:03, 7 September 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) 05:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exit Stencil Recordings[edit]

I have updated this entry with reviews from National and International press to address concerns about "evidence of any significant notability." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exitbrandon1 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

References are very local. No evidence of any significant notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable business enterprise; possible promo. Quis separabit? 00:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 00:02, 7 September 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) 05:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was going to comment earlier and I think I never came again because I hadn't noticed it again...my searches found nothing better than passing mentions at Books, News and browser. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Florent Bezara[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Florent Bezara

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

No indication of notability. The cited sources don't support the material as presented in the article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The creator of the article, BeGasy, has been blocked on Commons because of persistent copyright violations and block evasions (see c:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/BeGasy). 153.203.39.216 (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:NJOURNALIST. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see no signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; absolutely non-notable. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches turned up nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Several !votes claim that Volt meets PORNBIO, but there is no evidence that she won any notable awards. There is also a claim that she meets GNG, but I don't see the coverage needed for that. Randykitty (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Volt[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, just nominations. No actual assertion of notability. No independent reliable sourcing for biographical content. Only nontrivial ref is from a vendor site. Deprodded without explanation or article improvement by the usual suspect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. No significant independent coverage anywhere. Nominated for a few awards but never won any. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep notable french porn actress. She won Galaxy award and have some nomination for major awards in USA.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- no evidence in the article she won the galexy. Where is the evidence for that? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's here (click on Winners, and then on Winners 2012, pass over the second image from the left in the top row) Jessie Volt won the Spanish 2012 Galaxy Award in the "Best Female Performer Europe" category. Kraxler (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Kraxler. Hm No wiki article for the Galaxy award. perhaps the case that the award meets Pornbio still needs to be made. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If "Premios Galaxy" is a major porn award, then why hasn't their website been updated since 2013? We have plenty of porn enthusiasts writing articles. Where is the article about this major award? Who won the awards last year? Lacking better sources, forgetaboutit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails PORNBIO, sources are all in-trade, despite some award of unknown importance and the usual multiple trivial-marketing nominations for in-trade awards Kraxler (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as obviously passes PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails PORNBIO & GNG. Quis separabit? 17:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meet of PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 10:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeonghan[edit]

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

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

they (Jeonghan and Wen Junhui) has no significant solo work outside of their group Seventeen (band). They did not have a notable solo career in any field.I believe the page should be removed. (Pikhmikh (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. 15:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC) Donottroll (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 15:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donottroll (talk • contribs)

Strong Delete There is nothing on the page and absolutely no reason to keep it since he has no notable solo work.Peachywink (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The IMBd used as source for Wen Junhui was changed to a more reliable one which is the Hong Kong Movie DataBase. Also more valid references are provided to support Wen Junhui's works. Wjh610 (talk) 9:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

That's hardly convincing to keep the article as it needs better coverage for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 01:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to band and protect as this will likely be retsrated and there are simply no signs of improvement with the best results being this. SwisterTwister talk 01:57, 14 September 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 September 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is Jeonghan. I understand that his page is difficult to keep as he is still new to the industry so only few articles are made about him. But it's Wen Junhui's page I'm trying to save. If you only use 'Wen Junhui', articles about other Junhui's are shown instead. But if you use the Chinese character of his name (文俊辉) you'll have this or this. He was a child actor in China so most of the articles about him are in Chinese. Also I got some of the information from here. Wjh610 (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable subjects, seemingly promotional articles not supported by reliable sources. Baidu Baike is not a reliable source. Citobun (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because she was not famous for herself. For now, EXID is notable group in Korea and she was one memeber. So in her page is not necessary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkh409 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because she was not famous for herself. For now, EXID is notable group in Korea and she was one memeber. So in her page is not necessary - You made a mistake. This discussion is for Jeonghan, Seventeen(band). But what you write is EXID Jeonghwa.

Jeonghan, the member of Seventeen is not famous in Koera. Seventeen debuted May 26, 2015. Just 4 months before. In Korea wikipedia, all members of the Seventeen is linked together at '세븐틴(음악 그룹)'. Non of each members are registered individually at Wikipedia.--Rhee In Joon (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication in searches of these members independently meeting the notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Tasman Brower[edit]

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

I believe this to be a non-notable person. While she certainly seems to have accomplished a lot over the years (establishing school athletics programs, starting a local swim club and theatre troupe, etc) - none of these things makes her notable enough to merit a wikipedia article. Coverage in RS is largely limited to passing mentions and soft, local-interest news stories. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO in my judgment. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The "merit" comes from significant coverage in reliable sources, not the accomplishments. As such, subject fails WP:GNG. There is coverage, but all local and nothing that would satisfy significant coverage. --TTTommy111 (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage appears to be very local, and the accomplishments indicative of an estimable professional and civic life, but not of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I do note that the (Newark) Star Ledger might pass muster as a reliable source. But the only time it is used in the article (with respect to the subject of the article) is to document some local volunteer work. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches did not turn up enough to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Clark (British criminal)[edit]

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

I initially PRODded with the summary "G10 borderline, fails WP:BLPCRIME", then it was contested by article creator with no summary, but this person does not appear to be notable. Just murdering your mother, ~~who has an article here,~~ (striked because of Metropolitan90's comment) does not make you notable. There is no "Early life" section or anything other than that info so that makes the notability even more questionable. TL22 (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject murdered his grandmother Eleanor Clark, but she was not the same person that the Eleanor Clark article is about. The Eleanor Clark article is about a woman who died of natural causes 13 years before James Clark murdered a different person of the same name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:CRIMINAL. Nothing particularly notable about this murder. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely as this seems no different than any other event and this would be best mentioned elsewhere at best; my searches found nothing particularly good. SwisterTwister talk 07:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Searches turned up no in-depth coverage outside of the murder. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to re-creation of a neutral article, provided in-depth sources, not based on press releases, can be found. Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One97 Communications[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article on probably non-notable company, from now-banned promotional editor. Kept earlier on the basis of multiple refs in Highbeam, but they seem all to have been multiple reprints of press releases about various funding arrangements. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One97 Communications and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One97 Communications (2nd nomination) participants: Joseph2302 (talk · contribs), Richard Harvey (talk · contribs), CookieMonster755 (talk · contribs), Winner 42 (talk · contribs), Brianhe (talk · contribs), CorporateM (talk · contribs), TTTommy111 (talk · contribs), VegasCasinoKid (talk · contribs), Esquivalience (talk · contribs), VMS Mosaic (talk · contribs), and FreeRangeFrog (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Aulakh, Gulveen (2014-01-16). "One97 to step into online retailing with mobile market app". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
2. Bhattacharjee, Nivedita; Tripathy, Devidutta; Ruwitch, John; Thomas, Denny (2015-02-05). Fahmy, Miral; Cushing, Christopher (eds.). "Alibaba's Ant Financial to buy 25 pct of India's One97". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
3. Doval, Pankaj (2015-08-01). "No controlling stake for Alibaba in Paytm parent One97: Founder". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
4. Abrar, Peerzada (2011-10-10). "SAP Ventures invests $10 million in Delhi-based One97 Communications". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
5. Thoppil, Dhanya Ann (2015-01-10). "Alibaba to Invest About $575 Million in Indian Online-Shopping Service, Paytm: China's Alibaba and Affiliate Zhejiang Ant to Take 30% Stake in One97 Communications, Source Says". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
6. Shu, Catherine (2015-02-05). "Alibaba's Financial Affiliate Takes 25% Stake In India's One97, Owner Of Paytm". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
7. Abrar, Peerzada (2012-12-18). "One97 Communications acquires MobiVite to consolidate footing in mobile marketing space". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
8. Chaudhary, Apurva (2013-08-08). "Updated: One97 Communications Acquires IM App Plustxt For $2M". MediaNama. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
9. Peer, Nikita (2014-12-09). "One97 Communications to provide VAS services to West African telco Glo Benin". VCCircle. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow One97 Communications to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Circumstances have not changed since the first nomination. The company is 15 years old, employs 1200+ people and has sufficient reliable sources for inclusion, which is more than many other smaller company articles in the UK have. Note that One 97 is notable as the parent company of Paytm, which has never been marked for deletion. If this article is suitable for deletion then the other should also be deleted by default. NB: I have noted a tag on the article indicating a major contributor may be involved with the company, but does not indicate who, yet there does not appear to be a single 'major contributor' shown in the article editing history, therefore that tag is misleading and should be removed. As the Chinese company Alibaba Group only own 25% of the company then there is no need to redirect it to them, as it is not a wholly owned 'subsidiary company'. Tata also own shares and you cannot redirect an article to two others. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Richard Harvey:. The major contributor with a COI is User:BiH who created the article. SmartSE (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartse:. Thanks for the info. I had not realised the article was created by a paid advocate! In the circumstances I will change my stance and support Delete. Regardless of what is on the article in my mind it is original research. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Harvey:. If you have changed your mind, you should strike the "Keep" in your original comment. As for Paytm, that should be deleted as well, in my view. The usual story, 5-year-old start up referenced to a plethora of PR schlock, impeccably formatted and helpfully added by the same editor, who created One97. Observe this addition and what the Paytm article looked like just before his ministrations. Voceditenore (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alibaba Group - Promotional article for non-notable company. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 04:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at the very least redirect to Alibaba Group. Have any of you actually read the "coverage"? They are all reprints of press releases or blatantly press release-based. Voceditenore (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Are we deleting because it was from a now banned editor, it is promotional, or it is not notable? Press releases are often the start of news. If it is picked up by reliable sources, then I consider it a reliable source. If it says "press release" on the reliable source and references where it came from, that's different. However, seeing that many of them were picked up by reliable sources and written as an article is a different story. They have plenty of in depth coverage in reliable sources. --TTTommy111 (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given an AFD only occurred a couple of months ago, and nothing has changed, I think this nomination is borderline disruptive. If result is keep, this article should not be nominated again. AusLondonder (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not understanding the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial networking site or the Yellow Pages, and being paid for it. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform or source of income. Whether the text itself sounds promotional or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption of notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional. BMK (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promo. NOT. In particular suggest something like raising the bar by e.g. CORPDEPTH excluding funding rounds per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Circle_(company) so this can be made more clear. Widefox; talk 23:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just delete. Promotional article. Use WP:IAR to establish consensus that articles created by undisclosed paid editors will be deleted. Jbh ^Talk 23:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to establish consensus to establish policy. That is an abuse of process, User:Jbhunley. AusLondonder (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As when I proposed deletion the first time, spam about a non-notable company. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry User:Joseph2302. Did you miss the notable sources above that establish "significant coverage in reliable sources"? AusLondonder (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - same as last time per WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a pretty serious case of WP:GEOBIAS. This is a fairly large Indian company, with thousands of employees, millions in turnover and significant coverage in reliable sources such as the daily Indian business newspaper The Economic Times. I ask all delete-voters here, would they nominate an American company in similar circumstances? With Wall Street Journal coverage? Absolutely shameful. The paid editing aspect is irrelevant, frankly. Clean it up if that is the concern. AusLondonder (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geobias may be a factor, or may be a red-herring: not all participants are American and Circle is US, so on balance I'd say evidence would say it's a red-herring. It's a face-value we've got to do something about the undisclosed COI corruption of our standards. We're not guided in this long-term aspect, just in normal day-to-day N. Widefox; talk 21:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough independent, in-depth coverage to warrant keeping. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DNS Made Easy[edit]

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

Promotional article supported entirely by PRIMARY sources (mainly press releases) and name drops. No indication of notability, and the draft version was repeatedly declined for similar reasons. Primefac (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I don't think the article as it stands establishes notability, I haven't done a full WP:BEFORE check, and it doesn't sound aas if you have either, Primefac or if you have, you don't mention it above. As to the sources, [29] is a reliable source, although the mention of the subject is brief. [30] is a reliable source, and does not seem to be based on a press release. [31] may be reliable, I'm not sure of the credentials of the author. [32] looks to be reliable, but the key content is behind a paywall. I think this needs more checking before a decision is made. If it is kept it must be edited to remove promotional content and puffery, of course. DES ^(talk) 02:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did check all of those sources, and I did not feel that those sources demonstrated enough detail to demonstrate notability. Obviously if consensus is that I was overly critical, then I'll roll with it. Primefac (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. When I ask if you did a WP:BEFORE search, I mean did you do a net search of your own for other sources, not provided by the article drafter, to see if any of them demonstrated or helped to demonstrate notability? DES ^(talk) 02:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Yes, I did do a search, and found more PR and name-drops. Primefac (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thnak you for clarifing that, Primefac. DES ^(talk) 22:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space. I don't know why this ended up in article space, but it shouldn't be there. It might eventually be accepted through AfC if the blatant advertising, blatant paid editing and questionable notability are dealt with. Deletion was proposed here by DGG and supported by SmokeyJoe and Sam Sailor, and seems a reasonable alternative.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This ended up in article space because someone, i think Wikimoze, did a copy & paste move from Draft space to article space. There is no reason to think that after moving it back to draft space it would stay there, nor that after 5 declines it will prosper there, although it could if the creator and associates were willing. I fear it must be made into an acceptable article during this AfD, or else deleted. DES ^(talk) 12:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt, and not move to draft space. Having it there did not produce any improvement in the past, and there's no reason to expect any in the future. The MfD already deleted it there. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, the MfD didn't delete this or any version of it. It looked like it was heading to a delete outcome, but still had lots of time to run, when it was interrupted by the HistMerge, and made moot by the opening of this AfD. It is possible (but unlikely) that further eedits could have reverse the trend at the MfD. DES ^(talk) 22:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To add to the confusion, a new account has recreated Draft:DNS Made Easy on 16 September. I left a message on DGG's talk page in this regards. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because draft was declined so many times even after taking appropriate action and removal external links then that still be nominated for deletion. Not all resources seem to be press release. Please revert it for deletion and improve it yourself instead deleting it. Xandios (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Onus is on those seeking to retain the content to seek sources, not on those seeking to remove it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the draft for deletion, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:DNS Made Easy (2nd nomination). I considered WP:CSD#G6 but I expected at least a little pushback and didn't want to push the limits of G6. I'm hoping for a "snow" close on the MfD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another earlier version of the draft exists at User:ZippyCycle/sandbox as well. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 15:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched for significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, but found only passing mentions, press releases and the usual social media stuff controlled by the company. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - when a dupe of this came up at AfC, I declined it there due to notability. Searches turned up nothing but (as Primefac and Cullen328 point out), mentions and press releases. No in-depth, independent coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt due to the number of times a promotional article about this company has been drafted, submitted, moved, merged, created and otherwise wasted time of Wikipedians who might otherwise be building an encyclopedia. I was unable to find reliable sources to support notability. Cited sources often either don't support the promotional content or were cherry picked for promotion. For example, the current article states "In 2012, DNS Made Easy made history...DNS Made Easy's network was unaffected by the attack with no effects to end users" but the cited source was dated 2010 and says otherwise. The second paragraph in the lead claims that the company "is the number one provider in market shares" and the cited source supports the claim but other sources don't. Search for "dns service market share" or similar. I found no other source to support the company as number one. The company isn't notable. Articles about DNS Made Easy should be blocked for a while to minimize time wasted, recognizing that it may become notable enough for an article in the future. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 20:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny all of you claim wasted time of wikipedians and still be wasting your time in this discussion. Godaddy says "making it the world's largest ICANN-accredited registrar." doesn't this look like a promotional or advertisement? What if DNS Made Easy claims is the number one provider in market shares? There are so many little things on wikipedia and i see people never be interested to read/edit/improve on them but still existing. lol Doctree you're a racist man.. Well close this topic, delete article do whatever you want and stop being biased. Xandios (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tiffin, Ohio. Courcelles (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffin Cross Country Carnival[edit]

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

Appears to be a relatively minor high school cross country event. Nobody has bothered to update the results for over the last six years. Best source is not even in the article, but what was used to undo a previous proposed deletion. That article talks about the meets size in 1990, but that article does not overcome the lack of sources and what appears to be lack of importance. Doing a Google search gives a lot of sources, but they all seem to fall under WP:ROUTINE and/or the wrong side of WP:GEOSCOPE. RonSigPi (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. RonSigPi (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only a bit notable, with the coverage being slight and local-focused as well CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mention at Tiffin, Ohio and redirect as I found results here to suggest at least suggest it is well known locally and some of these news articles say it is one of the largest cross country meets in the country. Notifying CoffeeWithMarkets and RonSigPi of this. SwisterTwister talk 07:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and mention, as per SwisterTwister). Don't think this warrants a merge. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prospero's Books (store)[edit]

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

This sounds interesting and seems to be somewhat well known locally but my searches found no outstandingly good sources (searches here, here, here and here) and their best coverage may have been the 2007 book burning. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book burning actually got a lot of coverage. Local radio coverage from last year [33], Local News coverage (not related to book burning) from this year [34]. It meets at least WP:CORPDEPTH for such a small company since. WP:AUD is the real decision here, it has had national/international coverage in addition to continued regional coverage, but the most substantional national coverage is for one event. WP:LOCAL is pretty convincing to make a keep for locally known places that have had at least one nationally known notable thing. It also pops up on tons of travel/tourist stuff for KC, which isn't an official criteria might make people wonder why it's listed so they might look it up here. I think that since it's written pretty neutrally it should probably be kept. If it was promotional I'd probably be biased against it.--Savonneux (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, shouldn't we be looking at WP:EVENT for this one, ie. " Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance.", so if the coverage of the bookburning is discounted will there be enough to warrant an article? The "local news item" above does talk of the bookburning (probably why they decided to cover this news item) and talks about an urban library which may be a slight variation on the Little Free Library that individuals, groups and businesses have been setting up all over the world; prospero also happens to have set one up, hardly notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Coolabahapple's comment. Nothing to show notability outside this one locally notable event. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I have ignored the long (and difficult to understand) post by Eon5185, who only seems to be here to get this article deleted. Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Srivastava[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

A handful of minor roles, but doesn't come close to WP:NACTOR in my view. I'm sympathetic to the argument that it's usually harder to find written information on Indian topics than Western ones, but when it's a BLP we're talking about, caution is called for. Subject must have played minor and supporting roles in various films and TV shows, but fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Mentioned only in passing in cited media articles (which themselves are mostly second-tier sources), and I couldn't locate anything more comprehensive Delete 18:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC) David — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManishSrivastava1 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AfD had not been transcluded at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 5. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dharmadhyaksha for fixing that on 7 September 2015. --Bejnar (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)‎[reply]

~~Delete~~, I saw the references but it doesn't talk about Atul Srivastava particularly. I can see you are trying hard to save this article. There are thousands of actors like him in bollywood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManishSrivastava1 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC) David 17:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)David 17:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note User:ManishSrivastava1 has been indef blocked on September 9 due to checkuser evidence. Kraxler (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. AfD regulars, please be aware there is a high statistical risk of WP:BITE here. User:ManishSrivastava1, the nominator, and also the person signing (sometimes as "David"?) two of the sinebot-assisted bangvotes in favor of deletion so far, has invited User:Yobot,[35] User:CommonsDelinker,[36] and User:RscprinterBot,[37] likely unaware about WP:OTHERPARENT wiki-rules. Request that folks be nice to this beginning editor; no opinion on the article about the bollywood actor, but will note they share a surname with the nom. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion offered I have been canvassed to !vote to delete this article. I choose not to offer an opinion regardless of the merits or otherwise of the article. Fiddle Faddle 16:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with acceptable references. This artists appears in a great number of notable Indian films which have their articles as well in English Wikipedia. werldwayd (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd agree with werldwayd if there were any other significant coverage than just "‘Gulaab Gang’ an important milestone of career: Atul" from the Indian Express. But unfortunately, the rest are single line mentions, in lists of players (actors).He fails WP:ENT. The one award mentioned is only a nomination. He fails AWARD. werldwayd may dream of acceptable references, but they are just not present. --Bejnar (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above editors, particularly Bejnar. Searches revealed nothing which showed enough notability to meet WP:GNG nor WP:BASIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While this is somewhat of a borderline case, I feel like the only coverage of this fellow that we have is tangential. He's just not really that notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd say give or take he just passes NACTOR but he clearly fails GNG - The first source seems fine but the rest are mentions and the only thing I'm finding on Google is all mentions aswell, Don't mean to sound harsh but someone who's been acting for 13+ years he should have tons of stuff on Google, Some actors are notable, Some like these aren't. –Davey2010^Talk 02:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weep keep, passes NACTOR for work in multiple films and television soap operas. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Delete or Weep keep: I dont know good engish and wikipedia editing style, tried writing in wikipedia style. Today I met Atul Srivastava http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Atulshree Atulshree and he Atul Srivastava told me that he is on wikipedia and I was surprised. I asked him ‘HOW’…. than he told me about Wikipedia Editors, who charges money to write article. And he used one of editor’s services to write article about him Atul Srivastava. I dont see that so called wikipedia editor name here, must be his user name is different than real name. I would be surprise to see that Atul Srivastava is on wikipedia ????…

Yobot werldwayd Timtrent RscprinterBot onel5969 MBisanz ManishSrivastava1 Kraxler GoingBatty Dharmadhyaksha Davey2010 CoffeeWithMarkets CommonsDelinker First time I am seeing this type of politically favoured message. This message does not sound good and shows some kind of ‘CONFLICT’

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding Eon5185 (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC) at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using: — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. or Note: An editor has expressed a concern that username (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Now I am writing true facts ‘Remember to assume good faith’ on article “Atul Srivastava”. What is now posted on wikipedia, looks like paid article (As most of “Mumbai Wikipedians” are famous as paid editors for struggling actors on pretext of giving them some kind of fake publicity and some kind of notability). Wikipedia editors should understand that this so called article on Atul Srivastava going to be bad reference for wikipedia in coming future as most of the time "Mumbai Wikipedians" blamed as working paid editors. These so called "Mumbai Wikipedians" editors has nexus with Mumbai based news papers journalist who help each other to create some kind of news and than links to wikipedia article to make ‘Noble’ and ‘Noticeable’. Interesting to note that this article on actor Atul Srivastava become ’Noble’ in few days. Please check the authenticity of given references on Atul Srivastava article. I have tried to compare all kind of available sources and it fails in every test including ‘NACTOR’. Please take decision after reading these two contradict articles by same news paper "IndianExpress" on Gulaab Gang: One as reference used by wikipedia editor^[1] and now one I am showing you genuine reference that Atul Srivastava is not noble^[2]

birth_date = (1961-08-12) August 12, 1961 (age 62) (Wrong: Article “Atul Srivastava” category says Category:1962 births)
birth_place = Mumbai Capital of state of Maharashtra, India (WRONG, Reason: Bhartendu Academy of Dramatic Arts run by Uttar Pradesh Ministry of Culture, sponsored by Government of Uttar Pradesh and is only for students who born in state of Uttar Pradesh)
years active = 1994-present (WRONG: 1986/87-PRESENT, Passed out from Bhartendu Academy of Dramatic Arts in 1986 and working since 28/29 years)^[3]
Bogus Given References by a Wikipedia Editor:

Please note Reference No: 1. a b c d e (for all five) gives only one News Paper Indian Express^[1] source. Surprised to see for Reference (1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e) there is only one reference. Lets read this bogus fake article written by a paid journalist(dated=9 March 2014):

Bogus Article on Gulaab Gang by Indian Express: ‘Gulaab Gang’ an important milestone of career: Atul Atul Srivastava has done minor roles in films like ‘Lage Raho Munna Bhai’ and ‘Bhootnath’. After gaining appreciation for his minor roles in films like ‘Lage Raho Munna Bhai’, Munna Bhai MBBS’ and ‘Bhootnath’, actor Atul Srivastava says his character in Soumik Sen’s ‘Gulaab Gang’ is an important milestone of his career. Atul, 52, believes that his portrayal of a corrupt Block Development Officer in the movie, which released this Friday, will be appreciated by the audience. “I am getting good reviews about his work in Gulaab Gang. In the movie I get into a tiff with the Gulaab Gang leader Rajjo (Madhuri Dikshit), as I am playing a corrupt officer who charges bribe from the villagers to provide them electricity,” Atul told PTI. Talking about his working experience with Madhuri, Atul said, “Madhuri is a brilliant actor, and working with her has been a great learning experience for me.” This year Atul will deliver three more releases. In April ‘Chal Bhag’ will be released in the direction of Prakash Sainy, in which Atul plays a constable. Trained in acting from the Bharatendu Natya Academy in Lucknow, Atul will next play a protagonist in a film based on a story by Ravindranath Tagore – ‘Daak Ghar’. The film is titled – ‘Agar-magar, lekin, kintu-parantu’. Pradeep Das will direct the film. Apart from these Atul will be seen in Anurag Kashyap’s ‘Bombay Velvet’ and Johny Walker’s son’s ‘Chahe Mujhe Koi Junglee Kahe’ under Bombay Talkies productions. - See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/gulaab-gang-an-important-milestone-of-career-atul/#sthash.ySA2RUom.dpuf

After reading this ‘Full of lies’ article I have reached on this conclusion. References:

1. a: Lucknow.[1]^[1]
Remarks: ??? Does not make any sense.
Conflict: Just to write something. Atul Srivastava article should talk about his work.
1. b: 2003 - Munna Bhai M.B.B.S.[1] as the overacting fake patient[1]^[1]
Remarks: This given fake ‘Indian Express’^[1] article reference itself talks about that Atul Srivastava has done ‘MINOR ROLE’ in film Munna Bhai M.B.B.S.[1]
Conflict: Wikipedia Article on Munna Bhai M.B.B.S.[1] does not have his name in the credit ‘Cast’ list. It means Atul Srivastava has not done any work which could be noticeable in this film.
1. c: 2006 - Lage Raho Munna Bhai[1]^[1]
Remarks: This given fake ‘Indian Express’^[1] article reference itself talks about that Atul Srivastava has done ‘MINOR ROLE’ in film Lage Raho Munna Bhai[1]
Conflict: No Proof on IMDB. Wikipedia Article on Lage Raho Munna Bhai[1] does not have his name in the credit ‘Cast’ list. It means he has not done any work which could be noticeable in this film.
1. d: 2008 - Bhoothnath[1]^[1]
Remarks: This given fake ‘Indian Express’^[1] article reference itself talks about that Atul Srivastava has done ‘MINOR ROLE’ in film Bhoothnath[1]
Conflict: No Proof on IMDB. Wikipedia Article on Bhoothnath[1] does not have his name in the credit ‘Cast’ list. It means he has not done any work which could be noticeable in this film.
1. e: 2014 - Gulaab Gang[1]^[1]
Remarks: This given fake ‘Indian Express’^[1] article reference itself talks about that this film Gulaab Gang[1] an important milestone of his career.
Conflict: No Proof on IMDB. Wikipedia Article on Gulaab Gang[1] does not have his name in the credit ‘Cast’ list. It means he has not done any work which could be noticeable in this film. As per given ‘Indian Express’^[1] article reference: Means Atul Srivastava has not done any thing noticeable (noble) before year 2014 - Gulaab Gang[1] film. It means he is not ’notable’.
Contradiction (EXPOSED): Now read the same news paper Indian Express^[4] contradict article which does not talk about Atul Srivastava and his work in Gulaab Gang. If you read an article they even did not mention the name of Atul Srivastava in [Gulaab Gang]] article. Please read this article from same news paper Indian Express^[5]
Genuine Article on Gulaab Gang by Indian Express:^[6] Indian Express^[7]: Now lets read this genuine article written by an honest journalist talk about (dated=8 March 2014):

Film review: ‘Gulab Gang’ is actually the old-style good vs evil story Madhuri Dixit’s 'Gulab Gang’ has nothing to do with Sampat Pal’s real-life ‘Gulaabi Gang’. Madhuri Dixi’s gang, on the other hand, is as make-believe as make-believe can get. ‘Gulaab Gang’ is faking it. Review: Gulaab Gang Movie review: Gulaab Gang Cast: Madhuri Dixit, Juhi Chawla, Tannishtha Chatterjee, Divya Jagdale, Priyanka Bose Director: Soumik Sen So fine , maybe Madhuri Dixit’s ‘Gulaab Gang’ has nothing to do with Sampat Pal’s real-life ‘Gulaabi Gang’, even if both wear pink saris, and fight for women’s rights in a rural North Indian outpost. The difference between the two films ( and ‘Gulaabi Gang’ did the smart thing by releasing just ahead of the Bollywood take) is stark : the first , featuring the plain-faced Sampat, is a hard-hitting documentary ; Madhuri Dixi’s gang, on the other hand, is as make-believe as make-believe can get. ‘Gulaab Gang’ is faking it. Fearless Rajjo ( Dixit) runs a sort of a `gulabi gurukul’ in a village named Madhopur, where she teaches little girls their alphabets, and grown-up girls how to wield a `lathi’. Her ‘gang’ is made up of women wearing bright pink, and the ones closest to her are a ‘boy-cut’ tomboy type ( Jagdale), a woman abandoned by her husband ( Chatterjee), and a kohl-eyed dusky female( Bose). These ladies accessorize their pink with oxidized silver, and at least one them has a very spiffy manicure, as they go about standing up for the meek and the downtrodden, and going up against villainous husbands, cops and politicians. But from its opening frame you discover that in its supposed feminist garb, ‘Gulaab Gang’ is actually the old-style good vs evil story, styled in the tired way these films have been for the longest time. Its chief baddie is, ta da, a woman. Sumitra Devi ( Chawla) is the sort of politician that men have played for ever : hungry for power, will stop at nothing, not even murder and mayhem. She rules with an iron fist and a sneer, and Chawla makes the most of her part, even if all the lip-chewing and narrowing-of-the-eyes doesn’t amount to much. Dixit doesn’t even rise above her pink sari-and-sickle, though you can see her trying her hardest with all the flying-through-the-air stunts, cleaving bad men’s clavicles, and so on. How can you take a film seriously when each bout of `lathi’-clashing is interspersed with group dances, with Rajjo-Rani doing the familiar Dixit` latkas’ and `jhatkas’? In a deeply offensive scene, Sumitra Devi makes a fellow crawl between her subordinate’s legs : I don’t know who cringed more– me, the viewer, or the two people who were in that scene, the woman who is ordered to spread her legs, and the man who is forced to crawl in between. - See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/movie-review/film-review-gulab-gang-is-actually-the-old-style-good-vs-evil-story/#sthash.vdQYUiiF.dpuf

2. BIG Television Awards.[2]^[8]
Remarks: English translation of “Big Bechara Character Male (Fiction) means “Big Poor Guy Character Male (Fiction). I didn’t understand what kind of award was this ? Editor has given wrong reference: Big Television Awards started in 2011 and to be closed down because of irregularities and authenticity of nomination and nominees in that same year 2011. Please note it’s a “ARCHIVED FROM THE DEAD URL^[8].
Conflict: No Proof on IMDB. There is nothing written about BIG Television Awards[2] on Wikipedia Article page. BIG Television Awards: Please do see Revision history of "BIG Television Awards: Revision history" in ‘Edit’
2. 2009-11 - Bhagyavidhaata as Sharada Prasad (father of Bindiya, Poonam, Renu and Raja) (on Colors TV)[2]
Remarks: As per wikipedia article Bhagyavidhaata’’ ‘Cast’, Atul Srivastava name not given in first season. I can see Atul Srivastava name in second season that also 14th from top in the list of cast.
Conflict: If Atul Srivastava character was so important in TV Series 'Bhagyavidhaata’, Atul Srivastava should be atleast on top or close by of the given ’Cast’ list and most probably Atul Srivastava should be on both the season of Bhagyavidhaata’’. No Proof on IMDB

3. 2004 - Loknayak as Lal Bahadur Shastri[3]^[9]

Remarks: Bogus Reference - How wikipedia editor can use and predict this source as a genuine reference? When this film is never released and censored.!! Anyways given reference of Atul Srivastava name does not have any importance in the given reference article.^[10]
Conflict: No Proof on IMDB

4. 2015 - Bajrangi Bhaijaan as Bajrangi's father (Cameo role)[4]^[11]

Remarks: Given reference does not talk much about Atul Srivastava and his character and work, instead it only says in one line ‘FIVE MINUTE CAMEO DONE BY Atul Srivastava’ ‘MINOR ROLE’.

5. 2013 - Tota Weds Maina as Tota's father (on (SAB TV)[5]^[12]

Remarks: Given reference does not talk much about Atul Srivastava. Only you can see Atul Srivastava name. Article should talk about Atul Srivastava work.
Conflict: No Proof on IMDB

6. 2015 - Service Wali Bahu as Jogeshwar Prasad, Payal's father-in-law and Dev's father (on Zee TV)[6]]]^[13]

Remarks: Given reference does not talk much about Atul Srivastava. Only you can see Atul Srivastava name. Article should talk about Atul Srivastava work.
Category:Bhartendu Academy of Dramatic Arts alumni - If you compare Category:Bhartendu Academy of Dramatic Arts alumni Amritlal Nagar, Rakesh Pandey, B. M. Shah, Anupam Shyam and Nawazuddin Siddiqui against Atul Srivastava’s calibre. You will see he is not ‘Noticeable’ and you will find that there is no comparison.
External links
Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 14 at IMDb
Filmography

Film/TV	Year	Atul Srivastava’s Film/TV on Internet Movie Database (IMDB)	Atul Srivastava’s Film/TV on Wikipedia
Kehta Hai Dil	2002-2005	No Proof on IMDB
Munna Bhai M.B.B.S.	2002-2005	No Proof on IMDB	No Proof on Wikipedia
Loknayak (film)	2004	No Proof on IMDB
Kareena Kareena	2004-2005	No Proof on IMDB
Lage Raho Munna Bhai	2006	No Proof on IMDB	No Proof on Wikipedia
Pandey Aur Pandey	2006	No Proof on IMDB
Banoo Main Teri Dulhann	2006-2009	No Proof on IMDB
Bhoothnath	2008	No Proof on IMDB	No Proof on Wikipedia
Bhagyavidhaata	2009-2011	No Proof on IMDB
Lapataganj	2009-2014	No Proof on IMDB
Tota Weds Maina	2013	No Proof on IMDB
Gulaab Gang	2014	No Proof on IMDB	No Proof on Wikipedia

Result: ‘FAILED’ - ‘GNG’, ’NECTOR’, ’Not A Single Award’ and ’Not A SINGLE ARTICLE ABOUT HIM AND HIS WORK’ AWARD Eon5185 (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Eon5185 (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Eon5185 (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Eon5185 (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Eon5185 (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Eon5185 (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Eon5185 (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Eon5185 (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Eon5185 (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Eon5185 (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Eon5185 (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Eon5185 (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Eon5185 (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Eon5185 (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Eon5185 (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Eon5185 (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Eon5185 (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Eon5185 (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Eon5185 (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l "'Gulaab Gang' an important milestone of career: Atul". Indian Express. 9 March 2014. Retrieved 7 September 2015.
^ "'Gulaab Gang' Film review". Indian Express. 8 March 2014. Retrieved 20 September 2015.
^ "'Bhartendu Academy of Dramatic Arts ALUMNI'". B - Positive. Retrieved 20 September 2015.
^ "'Gulaab Gang' Film review". Indian Express. 8 March 2014. Retrieved 20 September 2015.
^ "'Gulaab Gang' Film review". Indian Express. 8 March 2014. Retrieved 20 September 2015.
^ "'Gulaab Gang' Film review". Indian Express. 8 March 2014. Retrieved 20 September 2015.
^ "'Gulaab Gang' Film review". Indian Express. 8 March 2014. Retrieved 20 September 2015.
^ ^a ^b "BIG Television Awards 2011". BIG FM 92.7. Archived from the original on 15 June 2011.
^ Pranava K Chaudhary (19 October 2004). "Uncensored 'Loknayak' to be screened soon". The Times of India. Patna. Retrieved 7 September 2015.
^ Pranava K Chaudhary (19 October 2004). "Uncensored 'Loknayak' to be screened soon". The Times of India. Patna. Retrieved 7 September 2015.
^ Dasgupta, Piyasree (20 July 2015). "Less Bhai in a Salman film: Why Bajrangi Bhaijaan is becoming the actor's biggest hit". Firstpost. Retrieved 7 September 2015.
^ "It's All About In-Laws & Your Bride!". India West. 7 January 2013. Retrieved 8 September 2015.
^ "Zee TV launches Service Wali Bahu". The Times of India. 15 February 2015. Retrieved 7 September 2015.

Note to Admin: Nominator User:ManishSrivastava1 started this AfD page which wasn't transcluded properly. The nominator then tried to PROD the page. The nominator is now blocked as a puppet. The huge chunk of text posted above by User:Eon5185 is the first edit by the user on WP. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
another Note that in India, every television channel hosts an "award" show to promote their own programs. The BIG Television Awards are the equivalent of a two hour advertisement for "employee of the month" and not the Emmys.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Because of the low participation: soft delete (equivalent to PROD). Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teazle (video game)[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and there are no easily verifiable print citations. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. (I went to repurpose as an article about the developer, but I can't find sources on that either.) If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 21:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Found these:

Swedish newspaper article about new (at the time) video games for kids, mentions Teazle among several others
Swedish Macworld article on Stonepacker. Apparently it's one of the puzzles from Teazle, and has been released as a stand-alone iOS game.
A very short review from a Swedish newspaper

Probably not enough, though.--IDV^talk 09:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey, just noticed that the Aftonbladet review is of the game's sequel.--IDV^talk 09:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So from what I can gather, the first source (DN) is a passing mention of the game, the second (Macworld SE) is about a minigame in Teazle and not Teazle itself, and the third (Aftonbladet) is a short blurb about its sequel. I still wouldn't argue that the game has significant coverage for its own article but I'd be fine with redirecting the title to an applicable section. The question is whether Teazle's developer is notable enough for its own article, or where else it would go. I think it should be deleted unless there is a clear article that can comfortably hold the meager Teazle background. – czar 14:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have done another search, and found some more sources:

Huffington Post review of Teazle Words, which seems to be an iOS version of one of the minigames from Teazle - I am not at all familiar with Teazle, so I can't tell if it's a new game or just a standalone rerelease similar to the Stonepacker one
DN review of Teazle 2
Not sure how useful this is as a source, but it's a fairly in-depth paper on the porting of Teazle to mobile platforms
Never even heard of this site before, so I'm not sure if it can be considered a reliable source, but they've reviewed Teazle Words

There's the possibility of more coverage in Swedish computer magazines from the 90s, but I don't have access to any. Guessing we'll have to delete the article.--IDV^talk 04:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana Maranhao[edit]

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

WP:ONEEVENT, no independent sources conform WP:RS (the last three are not about Maranhao at all) The Banner talk 20:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep as subject is covered by reliable third-party sources (like this one: Shervill, Rob (August 20, 2015). "Leamington teen to represent Canada". Windsor, Ontario: CKLW. Retrieved August 24, 2015.) although Googling her name is complicated by the existence of a Canadian actress born in 1977 with the same name. - Dravecky (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. 174.6.102.144 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. WP:BIO1E seems to be the overriding guideline here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aluízio Licínio de Miranda Barbosa[edit]

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

Non notable person, tagged for notability for several years no sources exist to establish notability. Winner 42 Talk to me! 05:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz^talk 00:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: resume article for otherwise insufficiently notable individual. Quis separabit? 12:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although my personal inclination here would be "delete", there is no consensus for this at this point (not even if I would add a !vote in this sense), hence I am closing this as "no consensus". Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of medical symptoms[edit]

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

Delete The article is poorly organised, inconsistent and poorly researched. 1) WP:NOTGUIDE, 2) WP:NRVE, 3) WP:LINKFARM. This article needs to be rewritten from scratch following these guidelines: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Signs_or_symptoms. Jkokavec (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination rationale are surmountable problems: just reorganize/remove incoherent entries/add more cites if you feel the form is inadequate now. WP:NOTDUP of Category:Symptoms. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The concept is too incredibly broad. We might as well have List of objects that have existed, List of songs that have been recorded, List of people who have worn hats, et cetera. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The list can be simply restricted to entries which have articles or at least discussion. Siuenti (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if for no other reason than WP:TNT. According to symptom, "A symptom is subjective ... and cannot be measured directly". That doesn't describe being shot, a bone fracture or tuberculosis. Way too many other entries don't qualify. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. ICD-10 Chapter XVIII: Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings#1 R00–R69 – Symptoms and signs appears to do a better job. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't allow me to find e.g. ocular symptoms grouped together. Siuenti (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, also the comment above by CoffeeWithMarkets about List of people who have worn hats is strikingly similar to a hilarious sketch by comedian John Oliver about climate change. — Cirt (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:CLN, far superior to category:Symptoms. Everything is fixable, unless people think the category should be deleted too. Siuenti (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree a list is more useful than a category, and no reason not to have both. This is useful for navigation. Dream Focus 18:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amr Mcgyver[edit]

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

My searches found nothing to suggest better notability and improvement with the best results here, here and here and there's not much info at it is (it's worth noting it seems his website is now closed) and there's not been much change since starting in December 2008. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedily: Utterly non-notable; clearly a vanity page as editor who created this article registered just to create this, and never made a single other edit (see [38]). Quis separabit? 21:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and above editor. No notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National U.S.–Arab Chamber of Commerce[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure if this is notable as my searches found results here, here, here and here but I'm not seeing much convincingly good. Pinging the only still active user DGG (who removed the PROD). SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't really see any significant notability here, or for the other related groups in other countries. A trade organization ofthe sort that will attract no coverage besides press releases and notice. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and DGG. Searches turned up nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NonProfit Open Source Initiative[edit]

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

My searches found nothing to suggest better improvement and notability with the best results being this, this and this and it seems they may not even be active anymore as their website seems closed and there's not much good info about them. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. The article itself makes no real claim of notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above editor. Searches turned up nothing. Could probably have been CSD'd under A7. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IASON[edit]

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

My searches found not much and nothing even good to suggest minimal improvement (here, here and here) thus with the article's less than acceptable state and no signs of improvement, the only hope is there's better coverage from Austria. There's also been basically no significance change since starting in August 2008 after the author moved to from userspace to article space themselves. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia-Montenegro relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. there is very little to these relations, trade is miniscule at USD3.5 million. and there is no evidence of significant relations between these 2 countries. LibStar (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough content to justify an article, fails WP:GNG. QueenCake (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs to be expanded, not deleted. Currently passes as a stub that could be given a template to expand. --Steverci (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you have presented no argument to how the article meets notability guidelines. LibStar (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough content to justify an article, fails WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 17:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegro-Vietnam relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. all there is to this relationship is diplomatic recognition. no evidence of things that typically make something notable like embassies, high level visits and agreements, significant trade. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of adequate notability. Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails general notability guidelines. Jbh ^Talk 01:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply no justification for an article. QueenCake (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom, who succinctly summarizes the issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sokker Manager[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. The1337gamer (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there still isn't any better coverage. Notifying SummerPhD in case this is of interest later. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think notability has been established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't see enough in the searches to show that the notability criteria have been met. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heriberto Vidales[edit]

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

Player has not appeared in a single professional match. Player has no appearances in league, cup or international play. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 21:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:48, 8 September 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) 16:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Player meets WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no professional games played Spiderone 17:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't find any references for the matches he's played, but if he did play for the Pumas then he certainly passes WP:NFOOTY. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Player did play for Pumas, according to the Liga MX link already in the article, where it says "Debut"..... But not in the league, in the Clausura 2013 Copa MX: the sheet for the match, which was against the fully professional opponents Puebla, shows him as a very late substitute. The corresponding Soccerway page shows only two substitutions, as opposed to the five that actually occurred, which is disappointing. Consensus is that cup matches between teams from fully professional leagues meet the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:NFOOTBALL. Although that was only a brief appearance a couple of years ago, the player is currently on loan at another team from a fully professional league, Toluca, so hasn't yet disappeared into obscurity. If he does disappear without making any further FPL appearances, feel free to bring him back here. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: after checking the veracity of those facts, the guy did play in the match against Puebla, as according to the official website. Here we can see the starting lineup, and he was on the field for four minutes during that match. According to our consensus that cup matches between two fully-pro teams are valid, he does meet WP:NFOOTY. MYS 77 ^✉ 21:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only coverage I can find of this player is brief mentions of his play for Pumas' under-17 and under-20 teams, and a mention of his appearance in the Copa MX. The article makes it clear that Pumas was using the Copa to play reserves ("fuerzas básicas"), so we can hardly consider that appearance to be on the same level as a fully-pro league match. Moreover a single appearance in a fully-pro league (especially for a handful of minutes) is not enough without some evidence of GNG compliance to keep an article (we've established consensus on this point in dozens of previous AfDs - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe is one of the first). Jogurney (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Jo, to clarify yor point, single appearances are fine when the player is still both active in FPLs and young. This guy is 22 and on loan at a team in an FPL. Fenix down (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's an accurate reflection of consensus - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991). Young players with only a few (4 in Vidales' case) minutes of play in a cup match need to show some sign of GNG compliance. Jogurney (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. Those players you have cited are those who technically pass WP:NFOOTY but have since dropped to a level not considered fully professional. This is a player who meets NFOOTY, is still active at a club in a fully professional league and is only 22. The players you mention are examples of individuals who made a couple of appearances at most and then completely disappeared from fully professional football.

Additionally, the inference in your comment that playing only a few minutes of football is relevant is misleading. NFOOTY makes no reference to duration of appearance, merely that an individual must have appeared. Fenix down (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't satisfy NFOOTY because it was a cup match (and one where Pumas clearly used its reserves). Even if it did satisfy NFOOTY (based on our interpretation that a cup match between two clubs from a fully-pro league is a deemed fully-pro league match - which is dubious when we know one of the clubs is not treating the competition like a fully-pro league match), there are a series of AfDs which indicate some evidence of GNG compliance is necessary when the article barely steps over the bright-line of NFOOTY. Vidales played in one cup match in early 2013, and hasn't played in anything approaching a fully-pro league since. That is very consistent with the Scott Sinclair AfD which was closed as delete. Jogurney (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to review your knowledge of the WP:FOOTY Deletion archive, there are numerous instances where it has been acknowledged that an appearance in a cup match between clubs from FPLs is sufficient to satisfy the spirit of NFOOTY.

I kind of get the impression that we're going round in circles, but I am working on the assumption that you do not remember the content of the Scott Sinclair article (career summary here). In that article the player had made a brief NFOOTY-satisfying appearance in 2008. The article was AfD'd in 2013, more than three years after reliable sources indicate his very brief career finished. The article in discussion here is about a player who has played in a country's top cup competition for an FPL team against another FPL team, is still in the early stages of this career and is on loan at another club in the same FPL. The two articles are not comparable.

I also think your comparison with Cosmos Munegabe I think is also wide of the mark. In my view this player, as he played in a full FIFA international, would probably be kept if he went to AfD now as he has played at the highest possible level of football.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree thought! Fenix down (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll agree that this article is within a "gray area" of notability. An article about a player with one appearance in a cup-match between two clubs from fully-pro leagues can satisfy NFOOTY in certain circumstances (although I don't think they're present here). However, setting the notability guidelines aside, we can only write an article about Vidales that indicates he has played with under-17 and under-20 sides and joined a group of reserves in making a 4-minute cameo in a cup-match his club surely didn't take seriously. That doesn't suggest notability to me even if we could find the sources to meet the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and several of the arguments by the above editors, particularly Jogurney. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Mervis, Scott (25 June 2009). "Pittsburgh Calling: Alive in the Underground releases eclectic debut album". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 31 August 2015.

[2] Jentzen, Aaron (23 August 2006). "Demise of Eros". Pittsburgh City Paper. Retrieved 31 August 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

[IndianExpress-3] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l "'Gulaab Gang' an important milestone of career: Atul". Indian Express. 9 March 2014. Retrieved 7 September 2015.

[4] "'Gulaab Gang' Film review". Indian Express. 8 March 2014. Retrieved 20 September 2015.

[“B-POSITIVE”-5] "'Bhartendu Academy of Dramatic Arts ALUMNI'". B - Positive. Retrieved 20 September 2015.

[6] "'Gulaab Gang' Film review". Indian Express. 8 March 2014. Retrieved 20 September 2015.

[7] "'Gulaab Gang' Film review". Indian Express. 8 March 2014. Retrieved 20 September 2015.

[8] "'Gulaab Gang' Film review". Indian Express. 8 March 2014. Retrieved 20 September 2015.

[9] "'Gulaab Gang' Film review". Indian Express. 8 March 2014. Retrieved 20 September 2015.

[Bhagya-10] "BIG Television Awards 2011". BIG FM 92.7. Archived from the original on 15 June 2011.

[11] Pranava K Chaudhary (19 October 2004). "Uncensored 'Loknayak' to be screened soon". The Times of India. Patna. Retrieved 7 September 2015.

[12] Pranava K Chaudhary (19 October 2004). "Uncensored 'Loknayak' to be screened soon". The Times of India. Patna. Retrieved 7 September 2015.

[13] Dasgupta, Piyasree (20 July 2015). "Less Bhai in a Salman film: Why Bajrangi Bhaijaan is becoming the actor's biggest hit". Firstpost. Retrieved 7 September 2015.

[14] "It's All About In-Laws & Your Bride!". India West. 7 January 2013. Retrieved 8 September 2015.

[15] "Zee TV launches Service Wali Bahu". The Times of India. 15 February 2015. Retrieved 7 September 2015.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]