Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 September	4 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Javed[edit]

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

Too soon with only one role so far done as per WP:TOOSOON and the most discussing part of this article is that it does not have even a single source. This means so sign of notability per WP:N. The article was created on 17 July 2015 and I don't understand why didn't anybody watched this article for 1 and a half months and nominated the article for deletion. ЖunalForYou ^☎️^📝 15:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he's obviously not notable and there's nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A preliminary WP:BEFORE search reveals very little. Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR. Mkdw ^talk 00:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to Ek Nayi Ummeed - Roshni. --Human3015^TALK 01:10, 7 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. Sorry, Jimbo, but there's not a single "delete" !vote here. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June Swann[edit]

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

Not actually a biography, and unlikely that we can gather enough information to make it into a biography Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If she is indeed "the world's leading authority on historic shoes" and a museum curator, surely there are biographical details publicly available somewhere, perhaps from institutions where she has been employed or from the publisher of her books that are noted in the article. Deli nk (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Shoe history is rather an obscure field, but she's a major figure in it. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Search for "footwear historian" returns only this article. Considering the other comments, i don't have an opinion for deletion but if she is the only footwear historian, she may need a different description that doesn't appear made up. --DHeyward (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It all depends on what we want to consider "significant coverage". this article in The Independent, this feature on her in National Geographic, this article in the Toronto Star, the Barcelona Metropolitan called her "an acclaimed shoe historian", The Baltimore Sun interviewed her briefly in this article, and finally The New York Times has two paragraphs about her in this article and quote her as stating that "she is the world authority on the history of shoe fashions". According to VADS, it refers to her by name and title, M.B.E., suggesting she's a Dame. I wouldn't necessarily call this a home run, but perhaps in the niche world of shoemaking and history, she may be a prominent person. Mkdw ^talk 03:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mkdw ^talk 20:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mkdw, it appears significant coverage in reliable sources does exist to support an article per WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am wondering if the page nominator could share with us just how he came across this article, and why despite rather good sourcing in the Independent and National Geographic, among others, he decided to nominate. Has the subject herself requested deletion? Tarc (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I have discussed elsewhere, I have a shortcut on my toolbar to take me to a random article in the category "British Women Writers". At the time of nomination, the article was a single paragraph. I wouldn't call the sourcing "rather good" at all - it's quite thin and, as I said in the nomination, the article was not actually a biography. I expressed doubt as to whether we can create a good biography. Mkdw has done an admirable job of gathering sources, and so it seems likely that the article can be improved to an acceptable state.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, even I as a passionate deletionist at least look around for sources before nominating an article. Tarc (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per MKDW - Before nominating any article editors are expected to search for sources which judging by this AFD the nominator clearly hasn't done that!, Anyway article's been expanded and judging by MKDW's findings i'd say notability's certainly there. –Davey2010^Talk 01:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MKDW by application of GNG. Hlevy2 (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, multiple references available and WP:ANYBIO, Swann being a widely recognises shoe (history) expert. Here are more (some may be deemed trivial?) references:

[1] - History, "in the roof we found a child's leather shoe - dated 1880 by shoe expert June Swann."

[2] - International Council Of Museums Costume News 2015:1, an obituary and shoe book reviews written by Swann.

[3] - Archaeological Leather Group Newsletter No. 33 March 2011, shows Swann attending and contributing to the Groups 17th Annual General Meeting, also has an article on shoe terminology and a shoe book review by Swann.

[4] - Fit for the Court Lady Ribblesdale's Shoes, 1797 By Noreen McGuire, Victoria & Albert Museum, Swann cited throughout and 2 of her books included in bibliography

[5] - Mystery of the shoe in the wall, "The study of concealed shoes began in 1957 when June Swann, keeper of the boot and shoe collection at the Northampton Museum, and a fellow curator each received a half-dozen shoes for identification. Most had been hidden near chimneys. Swann could find no literature on shoes concealed in houses. She wrote in a 1996 article in Costume Society Journal about how her curiosity was piqued especially by the discovery of a pair of child's boots in the thatched roof of a cottage in Northamptonshire. "I had this vision of a tiny child on the thatched roof," Swann, now 79 and retired, told the Star, "and I wondered, `What kind of family does this?' ... Not being superstitious, it took me a long while to convince myself that all my finds were (put there deliberately)." "

[6] - Secrets of an old shoe, "an online article by British shoe historian June Swann confirmed that in Britain, in particular, it was not uncommon for a shoe to be hidden somewhere in a house to bring stability and good luck to the household."

[7] - Characteristics of the Chukka boot, "However, in studying what shoe historian June Swann had to say about the boots and ..."

[8] - The Funeral Effigies of Westminster Abbey, a book review "The expertise of a distinguished group of international specialists has been drawn upon for this book; they are ... June Swann."

[9] - The World According to Shoes, news article quotes Swann.

[10] - Stepping Out, Footwear at UC Davis (Exhibition Review), one of Swann's books in recommended reading list. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, time to close this, or for Nom to withdraw it. She is notable in an actual field of study.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 10 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 Craig Russell (British author). Early close as nominator: no real need for an AfD in this case. Slashme (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Fabel[edit]

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

This article makes no claim of notability, and only a self-published site as a reference. Slashme (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Slashme, no claim of notability. samtar^{(leave me a message)} 22:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on second thoughts, I'm going to Merge and redirect it to Craig Russell (British author) and then do an early close of this discussion. Sorry for the waste of time! --Slashme (talk) 22:25, 3 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. Closed early per WP:SNOW. The article will be protected against recreation given the BLP concerns. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Garrison[edit]

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

No reliable source coverage whatsoever. AfDing instead of PRODding because I'm hoping for a speedy SNOW close on this. Brustopher (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improve sources and keep. Examples: The Nib, Online Hate Prevention Institute (Australia) (includes fair use image), Radix, Vice News '''tAD''' (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Nib is a a blog on medium, radix is a journal run by white supremacists and the OHPI source is written by Garrison about himself. That only leaves the VICE source. Still not notable. Brustopher (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OHPI find his story to be a relevant to their cause from the other side of the world '''tAD''' (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked for sources in the past and didn't find much. The OHPI has discussed Garrison's cartoons prior to the primary source mentioned above (summary, Scribd link). The report shows his cartoons and several examples of how they are defaced, but the report is more about social media and the role of memes and cartoons in antisemitism than it is about him as an artist. I believe The Nib is edited by Matt Bors who is an established cartoon journalist/editor, but it's still not really solid as a source for meeting WP:BIO. Grayfell (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - fails WP:BIO - again. ukexpat (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt, clearly does not meet the WP:GNG, page is also a magnet for trolling and defamation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and Salt Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails general notability guidelines, WP:NAUTHOR. Article has been recreated after being deleted as an Attack page and serious BLP violations are continuing per [11] Jbh ^Talk 13:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. Given the nature of the subject and the abysmal sourcing used currently, there may be an appropriate CSD, but a WP:SNOW delete and salt is probably most straightforward. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So he's a cartoonist and was trolled, doesn't make him notable. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Given the various BLP concerns, it's probably worth noting that the article creator has another copy of this in his/her sandbox: User:Rossbawse/sandbox. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Subject severely fails WP:BIO. Given the above commentary I also support a WP:SNOW close. No need to drag this out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:42, 4 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) 11:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Business Intelligence Transformation Model[edit]

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

Non-notable business model. Original editor has admitted that this is part of something he is designing for a client. It's not quite blatant spam, but it's certainly original research. No reliable sources have written about this model. —C.Fred (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bgwhite (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothin' better. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both original research (see above) and a neologism. Wikipedia is not here to create new stuff. Bearian (talk) 07:36, 10 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) 11:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nuestra Belleza México corona al mérito winners[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT, unsourced list of winners of an award that is not notable of its own. The Banner talk 21:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought at first this was just a list of winners of a notable pageant, but it's apparently a separate award or recognition given by the pageant to former winners. At most the fact the award exists could be mentioned in the parent pageant article, but we should probably expect secondary coverage even for that, and a standalone list of all is excessive detail either way unless it could be shown that the award is independently notable. Otherwise such awards are arguably a form of puffery for the subjects ("look at how awesome we think our past winners are") and not encyclopedic information. Note that "unsourced" is not at all a valid deletion rationale, and I'd urge the nominator to stop including that irrelevant assertion in every deletion nomination, but to consider and discuss instead whether the information can be sourced, as is expected per WP:BEFORE. postdlf (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above commentary; I would have to concur with the "unsourced" comment too - at least show that sources HAVE been searched for. Mabalu (talk) 11:09, 9 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 most of the SPA !votes, which were not policy based and basically argued WP:ILIKEIT. Randykitty (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Project Management Association[edit]

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

Promotional with borderline notability at best. Conceivably notable, though there is no evidence for that other than inclusion in a list of organisations. Until recently it was an inconspicuous factual article that might never have been noticed, but now expanded 500% into a absurdly over-detailed promotional press release. If there is any actual source for notability, it could of course be trimmed back and protected against the addition of such material. . (A listing in the infobox such as the present Employees: 51-200 is a sure sign of being taken from a database that just puts the material submitted by the organisations into categories without critical review. I've been noticing similar elsewhere, and all such articles need to be looked at. ) DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

I support this nomination. Trim back or delete this indeed "over-detailed promotional press release." -- Mdd (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Simply performed an update to the page, which was outdated in many regards. Maybe to wordy, but as a Not-for-Profit Organisation we do not have experts doing this, why a deletion could be perceived as discrimination of our volunteers all over the world. RW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:63:2715:5E3B:290A:8635:9BC9:77F (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC) — 2003:63:2715:5E3B:290A:8635:9BC9:77F (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I do not support this deletion which seems driven by an alterior motive. IPMA is the World's oldest PM Institution and has credible international standing in over 55 countries world wide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isdsharpe (talk • contribs) 11:37, 6 September 2015‎ (UTC) — Isdsharpe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I do not support the deletion of this article. The original article in question has been cleaned up. Thank you for raising this issue and bringing this to the attention of IPMA. This now looks similar to the other PM association's wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psm-canada (talk • contribs) 11:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC) — Psm-canada (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thank you for raising this issue. I do not support the deletion of thie article. However, there is a need for the article to be streamlined, enriched and improved. I have made few suggestions in the "talk" section. ChB,Cnbredillet (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)— Cnbredillet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note I have reverted the improper addition back to a cleaner version with a couple references which are not their own website. There have been an abundance of POV pushers and COI editors coming out of the woodwork this week. I would like to remind User:Psm-canada, User:Cnbredillet and User:2003:63:2715:5E3B:290A:8635:9BC9:77F that the Wikipedia community frowns upon editing articles in which you have a conflict of interest in, and could lead to a blocking of your accounts.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support the deletion of IPMA article. IPMA is worldwide recognized and respected voluntary based non-profit organization. It would be a great shame for the objectives of Wikipedia if you take IPMA out of WP. Please do not delete this article. -joxi-PMAF-— 195.156.22.99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I do not support the deletion of IPMA article. IPMA is worldwide recognized and respected voluntary based non-profit organization, existing in more than 55 countries. References to this organization is placed in thousands of books and articles world wide. 81.198.169.235 (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)LNPVA (Latvian National Project Management Association) — 81.198.169.235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Commment It'saless promotional article, but there remains no evidence of notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support the deletion of IPMA article. IPMA is the only global non-for-profit organization of that size (circa 60 national member association across the 6 continents) which has the the mission to develop and promote the project management discipline. References to this organization are placed in numerous publications, university curricula and professional coaching and training consultancies. In some countries (e.g. Croatia) IPMA's certificate credentials are recognized by law as the necessary requirement for managing public projects.Please do not delete this page. Croatian Association for Project Management, MVMvukoman (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)— Mvukoman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to closing admin A CU was conducted to investigate the SPA and IPs involved in this discussion.The SPAs were found not to be technically related, but it's likely a case of WP:MEATPUPPETRY and therefore as per the policy, it is my recommendation the accounts be treated as a single voice in this discussion. Mkdw ^talk 05:21, 10 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) 11:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

24SevenOffice[edit]

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

Fourth nom. No reliable sources. Fails WP:CORP. It was kept to be rewritten twice in the period 2005-2006, deleted once, and forgotten since. Nobody has improved it, and the keep arguments from back then are laughable ("WP:ITSNOTABLE" because WP:ITSIMPORTANT/"it comes up in google"). Sigh. Let's throw this garbage where it belongs: in the deletion bin. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nom. The previous "debate" was entirely laughable. My own searches turned up nothing useful, just a few "and this company also sells one" kind of mentions. I could find absolutely nothing that might remotely be described multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail as required by WP:GNG. If someone is more successful than I was and can find the necessary sources, I'm happy to revise my !vote. Msnicki (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Okay, I'm satisfied by the new sources. Msnicki (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep Here's the issue I'm seeing with this one: it's a Norwegian company based in Norway and most of the good, reliable sources you'll find might be in Norwegian. You can look at the company's Google News listing and see a bunch of Norwegian-language sources. The article as it stands doesn't have any references, but I'm sure there's something in those Norwegian sources to be found. Even a basic Google web search brings up a ton of Norwegian language sources. My argument isn't that the company appears in Google searches, it's that the company appears extensively in Norwegian language websites. Of course, this is a "soft keep" because I don't know how good those Norwegian sources are, and it doesn't appear that anyone's actually looked into those sources. Gargleafg (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gargleafg: I am all for non-English sources, and globalization, and such, but we cannot AGF the existence of sources (AGF is for editors, not content). You will see that Talk:24SevenOffice contains WP:NORWAY template. If that project is active enough that they have deletion notifications, and if someone comments here, good. Otherwise, we cannot keep it "because maybe there are Norwegian sources, but no Norwegian editor cares to comment". May I suggest that you invite members of that WikiProject from their talk page directly, and we will see if and what they say? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG due to ample press coverage. A search in Atekst shows 111 printed newspaper articles since 2004, and a significant number of these seem to be non-trivial. I have added three examples which should in themselves suffice in establishing notability. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as I remarked in my edit summary when I reinstated the notability tag, I'm not satisfied. These new cites look like routine coverage of the company's press releases. It would help if there was even one good source in any language that we could all examine. Msnicki (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All three references in question were chosen because there were feature articles in high-circulation newspapers/magazines written by staff journalists. Don't worry, there were ample to chose between. They are all lengthy articles (Kongsnes for instance is 430 words in length) and none are, as you claim, "routine coverage of the company's press releases". There is no requirement that notability be established through the use of English-language sources nor that it be available online. To quote WP:N, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My objection has nothing to do with the language or whether the source is online or not. It has everything to do with the poor quality of the sources you've offered. They appear to me to be routine coverage of the company's press releases. ~~Note, for example, that they are very heavy on quotes from the principals, always suggestive that the material is just routine coverage.~~

Per WP:CORPDEPTH, Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: ... brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, ... quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.

And from WP:ORGIND, Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[3] except for the following: ... other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.

I appreciate that you disagree and you have a right to your opinion but I have a right to mine as well. I am simply not convinced by your sources. You do what you like but I'm still !voting delete. Msnicki (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The newspapers, blue-linked in the article, look reliable. Now, I can't read Norwegian, so User:Arsenikk, could you provide a brief summary of the sources? What is their primary topic, how many sentences do they devote to the article, are they quoting/reprinting press releases or not? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, all three articles are staff-written, signed articles. None of them bear sign of being rewritten press releases. The first two are feature-like, i.e. they are telling a broad story without much "newness", while Lyche's article is a clear news story. Kongsnes is 430 words and entirely dedicated to telling the story of the company. It goes to a fair detail through the company's history, business model, recent development and future plans. It is as objective as any normal newspaper article, with no particular bias either for or against the company. This article is exactly the kind of coverage which WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND is claiming establishes notability. Okkelmo is 1722 words, and a general coverage of Norwegian companies expanding to the UK. About a fifth of the article is dedicated to the company in question. Again, it presents a general history of the company and aspects related to the UK expansion. I used it as a reference because it had relevant information, not because it necessarily in itself establishes notability. I have added two more references, with Stenseng being 936 words and Edvardsen being 517. Again, staff-written, signed feature articles giving a presentation of the company, its production, operations, history and plans. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article that's only 430 or even 1722 words (especially when only about 350 of them are about the subject) and only tells just the kind of stuff a company would report on its "about us" page or in a press release is not "feature-like". More important, to be a WP:SECONDARY source, it must provide the author's own thinking and the author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas. What you've described doesn't do that. Msnicki (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be of some value here if people were aware that Dagens Næringsliv and Stavanger Aftenblad, to mention two of the sources used, practice what has become the widespread norm over here namely to post online only a small foretaste of the entire article found in print and e-print. Counting words in the online articles is an exercise in futility. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article appears to have been copied originally from the Norwegian Wikipedia article (translated here). They don't have any sources there, either. Msnicki (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Msnicki. Searches showed nothing to indicate the notability of this company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:HEY, hang on! -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and that's a very clear keep: there are sources available to establish notability far above the minimum WP:NCORP. I'll be working on the article when time permits. There are at least 20 more refs currently in my source stack to be added. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I expanded "this garbage" four days ago with the further addition of some 50-60 references. Sources for 2009-2015 are abundantly available. May we have some feedback from Piotrus and onel5969? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, very good job. If I was voting, I'd change to abstain, but as the nom I am not sure what I can do. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you've decided the new sources are satisfactory, you may withdraw your nomination and either close it yourself or let someone else do it. For example, here's one I withdrew in a similar situation. Msnicki (talk) 15:29, 10 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. Salted. Randykitty (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph DiDonato[edit]

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

This autobiography of a 13-year old does not have the references to establish or verify notability. A google search does not reveal any independent coverage. ubiquity (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. I couldn't find any reliable sources to add, fails WP:BASIC. Article has been A7 deleted thrice, last time was two weeks ago on August 18.[12] -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing better than the usual websites and the message isn't going through that this needs better improvement until it is accepted. At best, once better, this can be sent to WP:AFC. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt – Not finding coverage to qualify an article; does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. Salt because an article about this non-notable subject (per Wikipedia's standards) has been created and deleted three times before [13]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Part Hoax, part simply not notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:13, 10 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) –Davey2010^Talk 01:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tijuana (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Created by a banned editor. Ignoring this as it is allegedly useful, none of the current links are known as "Tijuana" alone (example: "Tijuana"). As neither of the enlisted terms is known as "Tijuana" the page loses its function of disambiguation page. For a further reference, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Examples_of_individual_entries_that_should_not_be_created. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom and WP:PTM as nothing else is known as "Tijuana". -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing rationale to keep, because Kraxler makes good points that are impossible to ignore. The disambiguation is useful, so it's not helping anyone by deleting it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Tavix notes, don't close a discussion for a still-existing article unless the close is "keep" or "no consensus". A "deleted" close isn't a good idea until/unless the article's deleted, simply because deletion hasn't happened and can be opposed. Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PTM which expressly allows entries "if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context" - That's exactly the case here:
Tijuana, evidently
Tijuana Municipality, may be referred to as Tijuana without the "municipality", both by being uncertain about the exact location within or outside the actual city limits, or by talking about the region, including area more than just the city
Tijuana metropolitan area, similar to the above, saying like "Greater Tijuana" or the "Tijuana region" has x inhabitants, for example, omitting the awkward "metropolitan area" or just the "metropolitan" part for brevity
Tijuana River, rivers are many times referred to as "the [river name]" as in "The Tijuana flows into the Pacific Ocean."

The other three entries (Playas de Tijuana, Tijuana River Estuary, Tijuana Cartel), and assorted partial matches may be listed in the "See also" section. Kraxler (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with the arguments made by Kraxler. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kraxler; I've reformatted the page as a dab page where there exists a primary topoic. PamD 21:50, 8 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 per WP:SK # 1. Kraxler (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)} Kraxler (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of tributaries of Shamokin Creek[edit]

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

I fail to see how this passes wp:GNG and wp:FORK, as the topic is the only 12 tributaries for a just 50-km long creek that is not famous for anything in particular. Nergaal (talk) 20:04, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep disruptive nomination of an article that the nominator himself admits is long enough for featured list. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC) addendum: This also quite clearly meets Wikipedia's gazetteering functions as a list of notable geographical features. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I should mention that I wrote the said article, for transparency's sake. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep disruptive and pointy behaviour yet again from the bad faith nominator. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how does your statement clarifies that this passes GNG. Nergaal (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how your nomination actually passes a cursory glance. GNG has already been established, time for you to stop disrupting Wikipedia, discouraging editors, and making points which aren't actually valid. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, let's encourage editors to work even more on pointless forks that nobody will ever open to read. Let's make sure that actually meaningful lists don't have the chance to receive any reviewer comments by continuously flooding FLC with such completely useless compiled data. Nergaal (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on the presence of credible sources, not whether you find it useful or not. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary keep: There are six sources, none of which look unreliable to me. Enough to pass GNG, and this bulky list is not particularly suited for the parent article either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:06, 4 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) 11:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arendelle (programming language)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. Article cites no third-party sources, nor can I find any using DuckDuckGo, GScholar or GBooks. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to write in here I guess. Recently I was in a school and a friend of mine was teaching kids programming with Arendelle. I remember they were motivated by their teachers that if you code good maybe your year photo goes to Wikipedia. I understand your concerns. Well Arendelle is a tool used in some schools and universities here in Iran. Some stuff like flowgorithm or the book Create your own programming language... likes it (if you know about computing you sure know about CoffeeScript or maybe Fancy they are both featured in the book as well as Arendelle. And at least Coffee is one of the most important languages around. And honestly I bet if you search web you don't find anything. Really do a search, search "Fancy Language" and only thing you find is this link: http://rubini.us/2011/02/23/introduction-to-fancy/ but that doesn't mean it's cheap. It's worthless or something. I know many people who code in Fancy. Fancy is in GitHub's official languages and it is RosettaCode. For a language you really need nothing more than having one of these to say it's popular. But I remember I tried to fix the book (https://www.gitbook.com/book/kary/infancy/details) as there was nothing to read about and for god's sake review their references) and it Arendelle there are books, a hell lots of compilers and interpreters (even most of the coolest languages have one, there are 3 for Arendelle. nothing not well known reaches this) and there are so many stuff written for Arendelle that even the most famous ones don't. I may be emotional about Arendelle because I'm a part of the project but seriously if you know or knew anything about languages you could never find it "not notable". I'm sad that the page is going to be lost because I've seen people getting to excited about it. For our not well know community it was such a confidence and now that it is going to be done I feel we may even face serious consequences and well maybe those kiddos never find themselves in Wikipedia.

P.S[ 1 ]: References for Arendelle are the best. Because they are "Official References" for it. A language is not something you do blogs, press and books for it's features or stuff. A language is a "standard" and you have to check the official standard reference for it. Arendelle's features are written on standard formats is it's book, it's website, and most importantly it's source code. If I write a blog or CNET do it, non of them are even reliable for understanding Arendelle. And well if you just check the article there is nothing as "OMG Arendelle is soooooo coool!! it has this or that, just 34.34$" even Apple page has that but if you just check Arendelle's page you see nothing but some technical details about Arendelle. I'm sure people who wrote the document and me are all Arendelle super fans, but honestly, it's one of the most impartially written Wiki pages, I don't see even see adjectives but stuff like domain-specific which are language attributes. So I think for that matter the references are not just fine, but the best possible. (For just a sec, Imagine there is this giant page about an ISO standard, and the references are press and media... I have nothing more to say). just once try Arendelle or something else and after you know programming you will never say that the references are bad.

P.S[ 2 ]: I don't know if you ever had people who look up to you. But here there are. And after Arendelle being destroyed they will all just think "What they do is not important" and well next time I see them I can tell that well that something as trying so hard to be able to expose nudity is important but well what you do is exactly marked "meaningless" and "not notable". Honestly I didn't even care about a page like this on the web. But well I wrote all this because I just started thinking that was the most offensive way to call something or someone "not notable", at least change the name or something.

Karux (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I love Arendelle. It's just sad --Thechosendragon (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC) — Thechosendragon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thanks for your support! very kind of you

Karux (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I care about Arendelle and I don't think it should be removed ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.9.127.206 (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC) — 85.9.127.206 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thanks for your support! very kind of you

Karux (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

arendelle is one of the most gorgeous programming language I've ever known and i really support it— Dukehamid (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC) — Dukehamid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thanks Hamid, I wish others see this and help us express Arendelle matters to us

Karux (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karux, Thechosendragon, Dukehamid: this is not about whether you like the topic of the article under discussion. If you want to salvage it, come up with reliable sources to establish notability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done. It's hard to argue with someone who has lots of articles. I have only fixed words and stuff in here never page creating or so. However I don't think this page ever gets to live and I don't have the energy to help that. Go on delete it. Arendelle also is in other pages try not to forgot to remove those. I've spent past week keeping the page safe. Talking to others, fixing what they thought was bad for wikipedia and I'm tired now. I think Arendelle has more and more reliable notable sources than many other pages. (make sure you read my first comment). and that was all I had to say. I hope that you can dream. Have fun cleaning...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Karux (talk • contribs) 22:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karux, there's nobody here that particularly wants to delete the article, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not everything in the world is a suitable topic. Specifically subjects must be notable in Wikipedia's special sense. This does not mean subjects failing those criteria are worthless, just that they don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. For software, there are further guidelines at WP:NSOFT. What we need is for someone, who is a reliable source, other than the people intimately involved in the project, to establish its notability. Surely if this is worth an encyclopedia article someone will have written about it. Primary sources are not generally acceptable, except for basic facts - for example question regarding the syntax of the language. But other that *you're* assertion, and you're admitted not being impartial, why should there be an article? Rwessel (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Easy call. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources discussing the topic in detail to demonstrate notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling the web and books turned up absolutely nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#OR #2. Could someone also clean up the mess Karux and Thechosendragon left in several other articles? —Ruud 09:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got some of them, but I think the additions to the various "comparison of programming language (x)" need to stay unless the article is actually removed. Rwessel (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I think we can invoke the snowball clause here. Or just not forget to do it after the AfD is over. —Ruud 11:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your heavenly words. I will fix it myself 31.59.239.7 (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Karux or Thechosendragon? If so please consistently log-in when editing. It make things hard to follow if you don't. Thank you. Rwessel (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well who cares the importance is fixing Wikipedia and it was me --Karux (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm fixing everything. And I will list the pages I fixed here:

* List of programming languages

* List_of_programming_languages_by_type#Educational_languages

* List_of_educational_programming_languages#Children

* Comparison of programming languages (array)

* Comparison of programming languages (syntax)

* Comparison of programming languages (strings)

* Arendelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.59.225.119 (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I didn't have the authorization to remove this one:

* Computer_Programming/Hello_world

I'm searching to see if there is any other page and don't you worry I will clean them up. (Just use nice words please) Karux (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless some evidence of notability shows up. My comments above apply. Rwessel (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I originally suggested this be speedied as spam. There is plenty of evidence here that the language exists, but none that it is notable. People make up new languages everyday. I've made up three myself, but I don't believe they belong here on Wikipedia. Karux's contention that the kind of coverage we're looking for doesn't exist for computer languages seems bizarre to me. There is plenty of coverage for notable languages like java, swift, C, and so on. ubiquity (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:23, 9 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) 11:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

তিন ব্যক্তির গুহার মধ্যে আটকে পড়ার ঘটনা[edit]

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

Non-english content, links to a bible passage. No real point to having this page. IsraphelMac (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I just tagged the only link for deletion.--ABCDEFAD_✉ 19:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ABCDEFAD_✉ 19:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article title reads "the incident of three people trapped in a cave". It is a duplicate of Bukhari 2272 and 3 byaktir guhar moddhey atika porar ghotona. DrKiernan (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are simply no signs of improvement at this time and although I found results such as this, this is a good example of WP:TNT and is best restarted anew. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 10 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 delete. Per CSD A3. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 16:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bukhari 2272[edit]

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

This passage is a bible reading. ABCDEFAD_✉ 19:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:35, 3 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 2008 Dutch Caribbean Age Group Championships. Randykitty (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Dutch Caribbean championships[edit]

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

Is a copy of here. Don't think it needs to be merged as everything in the article is already covered by the other article. TheEditor867 (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you can redirect this article to the other one yourself if you think it's appropriate, you don't need AFD to do that. shoy (reactions) 14:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Shoy: the article is likely reported at AfD to have the article and the link deleted, so that it is not left as a redirect. Probably the name is totally wrong or something. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without leaving a redirect, since it clearly is a much shorter version of an already existing article which also seems to have a more correct name than this one. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 22:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 19:30, 3 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) 11:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chimango Chirwa[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails general notability guidelines, WP:ANYBIO etc. Ambassadors do not have inherent notability and while his name shows up in many news articles I could find only one that is not simply a trivial mention. There might be some information on him in regional newspapers since he is referred to as an 'outspoken critic of the government'. Right now all coverage falls under WP:BLP1E for his appointment as Ambassador. Jbh ^Talk 16:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Malawi's ambassador to the African Union is a very important position in a small, non-western country like Malawi. Given that the article is on a non-western prominent person (see WP:BIAS on our collective bias) and that the article is only a week old, it is too soon to delete.--TM 20:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete created by a single purpose editor so probable autobio. His positions do not confer inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has held at least two ambassador-level positions, one to the African Union, which is a bigger deal than most Westerners realize. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no inherent notability to those positions nor does he seem to have any press coverage that would indicate he is notable in and of himself. There might be sources that are not easily available and there is no bar to recreating the article if some are found or if he gets some substantial press coverage. Jbh ^Talk 22:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The question I have is how does he demonstrably pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines? The mere assertion of notability is not enough, it must be documented. Cheers. Jbh ^Talk 22:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Ambassadors Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Louis Schechter, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ambassadors of Russia to Thailand, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Pike Bissonnet, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olav Berstad, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miyoko Akashi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mexican ambassadors to Serbia, etc. show that people who are full-time Ambassadors as such are generally notable. In the case at hand, the issue should be whether the posts are considered important within Africa, as being the place where any sources would most likely be found. Thus the role in the African Union seems sufficient here. Thus the Nyasa Times articles are salient, and, in my opinion, tip the scales. Collect (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no, this list of Afds demonstrates no inherent notability of ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a comment (not necessarily relevant to this AfD), it's worth remembering that most ambassadors are actually mid-level civil servants, with countries generally only posting high ranking or otherwise notable people to their most important embassies. Nick-D (talk) 02:08, 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 19:30, 3 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) 11:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Backwaters Press[edit]

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

Minor small press. Fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no evidence of reliable, independent sources that cover this press in any detail. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly vote to Keep. Clearly this press is important as seen by the Nebraska Arts Council (whose mission is to cultivate the literary arts in Nebraska) as evidenced by their numerous awards to them. This press successfully balances a mission that supports his state's artistic and cultural goals, while reaching out to the larger, national literary community by publishing significant authors as recognized by the national literary community. It also publishes new and emerging authors and fosters the literary arts in Nebraska and throughout the region. If there is an issue here of finding secondary sources, it is only because poetry and literary don't often "make the news," but that does not mean that literary culture is not notable within the community. The Backwaters Press is without a doubt notable to all authors within Nebraska and surrounding areas and to anyone who cares about the literary community and traditions of the Great Plains. Not only is Backwaters Press notable in itself. It is notable for serving an important cultural mission. Please keep this entry. Thank you.Edward Dixon (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Edward Dixon[reply]

Notable in Wikipedia terms, means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Theroadislong (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the recent addition of added content and a citation by Project Muse which I submit provides secondary sourcing and verifiable evidence of the notability of this press. Thank you. Edward Dixon (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not finding enough significant coverage in searches for reliable independent sources. The listings with Nebraska Arts Council and Project Muse are a start, but do not reach the notability threshold. More significant coverage needed. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is a poetry press? Is it to be judged by WP:ORG? Or by WP:CREATIVE. I argue for something more like the later. (and, yes, I am aware of WP:NOTINHERITED) My argument here is that for a small literary press, notability is produced and measured by the ability of that press to select, edit and produce notable works. This article is largely sourced with articles about the awards its books have won. I believe that the fact that it has been so successful in choosing and producing notable books, should persuade us to keep this article. Back to reality and the standard criteria for a keep. This award [14] along with material from the Nebraska Arts Council and Project Muse are persuasive. Along with the fact that the founding editor of the press is a writer of independent notability [15] Who should probably have an an article, too.

Plus I did a little sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the limited sourcing that suggests it's a culturally significant entity in Nebraska; I'd feel more strongly about this if we could turn up some sort of newspaper article or other RS with more direct and substantive information about the press. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 19:29, 3 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) 11:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambulatory Healthcare Services[edit]

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

I was actually going to speedy and my searches found nothing better than this and this, this and this but, in case it was notable in Abu Dhabi, I nominated it instead. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I waited to see if there would be any contributions from someone with more knowledge of the middle-east. My searches turned up nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 19:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copyvio of a few websites. I found plagiarism and misrepresentation of [16] and [17], to name two. The figures from the second link have been distorted. I am also doubtful over whether this is a notable topic. SEHA would probably be notable but AHS is murky. Elspamo4 (talk) 18:45, 7 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) 11:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cha Dao Tea Company[edit]

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

Recently founded company with no evidence of better coverage and my searches with the most fruitful results were here and here and although I haven't searched local news sources, it would probably be the same level of low results or maybe a little more but still minor because it's local (though the article's sparse edits suggest it may not be as well known as it actually is). I would've let this article be if it wasn't that sourcing could be better. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing on the search engines shows this to be a notable company. Without an interested editor to provide better sourcing, the best thing is to delete for the time being. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 19:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google search reveals only user-generated sources. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable company. We are not a web host for new companies. Bearian (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Aitken Smith[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer with no substantive claim of notability under WP:AUTHOR, and sourced exclusively to primary sources such as his own PR profiles on Smashwords and Goodreads. The only reliable source anywhere in this entire article isn't actually about him at all, but is actually about the person from whom he derived his pen name. This is not how a writer gets into Wikipedia — it takes reliable source coverage, not primary sourced verification of existence. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It may simply bee WP:TOOSOON, but I can find no reliable, secondary sources for this writer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 19:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially self-published. There is a publishing company (HotPepper Publishing) that has only published his first book and a single short story by him. Not on Amazon, even. LaMona (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now unfortunately as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 10 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 Babylon and On. Randykitty (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Footprints (song)[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 deprodded with the edit comment, "it's a Squeeze single just like all the others that have articles" WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also apply. Richhoncho (talk) 10:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I created this page ages ago, along with the other various Squeeze singles. Notable band, notable album, but as far as I can tell this single never charted, despite being later included on several "hits" compilations. I'll defer to others to judge whether there could be enough substance here to justify retaining the page. Mrmctorso (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's doing no harm. If it were a stub or just marked 'unreferenced' it could exist without incident. If we delete this, we'll have to start deleting most of the singles in Template:Squeeze. Fuddle (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NSONGS. Azealia911 _talk 22:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 19:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Babylon and On which is the singles album - Obviously fails NSONG but 9 times out of 10 singles get redirected to albums anyway, –Davey2010^Talk 01:17, 10 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) 12:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Forfar Athletic F.C. season[edit]

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

Article is unnecessary, offers no more content or context than available at Forfar Athletic F.C. and is unlikely to be updated. Exxy (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 17:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These are professional clubs and I'm fairly certain with work they could meet GNG, however a mass of articles were created that no one has any intention of updating. As the nominator says they offer no more in there current state than the main article. GS we do usually allow articles at this level and it certainly wouldn't have less coverage than the English National League. However it is my view they should be deleted. Blethering Scot 21:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 19:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Contrary to the claim above, Forfar are not a professional club. Number 5 7 14:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS. The club do no play in a fully professional league, nor in the top tier of their respective country therefore, by neither count could they be considered to be competing in a "top professional league" per NSEASONS. Perhaps at the end of the season, there will be sufficient significant, non-routine, reliable coverage to create an article comprising significant elements of sourced prose, but not at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG Spiderone 19:46, 8 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) 12:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Cowdenbeath F.C. season[edit]

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

Article is unnecessary, offers no more content or context than available at Cowdenbeath F.C. and is unlikely to be updated. Exxy (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 17:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These are professional clubs and I'm fairly certain with work they could meet GNG, however a mass of articles were created that no one has any intention of updating. As the nominator says they offer no more in there current state than the main article. GS we do usually allow articles at this level and it certainly wouldn't have less coverage than the English National League. However it is my view they should be deleted. Blethering Scot 21:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 19:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS. The club do no play in a fully professional league, nor in the top tier of their respective country therefore, by neither count could they be considered to be competing in a "top professional league" per NSEASONS. Perhaps at the end of the season, there will be sufficient significant, non-routine, reliable coverage to create an article comprising significant elements of sourced prose, but not at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, complete lack of coverage from reliable sources. The club doesn't play in a fully pro league. Wikipedia articles should be more than just a collection of stats and results. Spiderone 19:49, 8 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) 12:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Airdrieonians F.C. season[edit]

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

Article is unnecessary, offers no more content or context than available at Airdrieonians F.C. and is unlikely to be updated. Exxy (talk) 20:19, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 17:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These are professional clubs and I'm fairly certain with work they could meet GNG, however a mass of articles were created that no one has any intention of updating. As the nominator says they offer no more in there current state than the main article. GS we do usually allow articles at this level and it certainly wouldn't have less coverage than the English National League. However it is my view they should be deleted. Blethering Scot 21:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 19:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Number 5 7 14:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS. The club do no play in a fully professional league, nor in the top tier of their respective country therefore, by neither count could they be considered to be competing in a "top professional league" per NSEASONS. Perhaps at the end of the season, there will be sufficient significant, non-routine, reliable coverage to create an article comprising significant elements of sourced prose, but not at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG Spiderone 19:47, 8 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) 12:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Albion Rovers F.C. season[edit]

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

Article is unnecessary, offers no more content or context than available at Albion Rovers F.C. and is unlikely to be updated. Exxy (talk) 20:22, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 17:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These are professional clubs and I'm fairly certain with work they could meet GNG, however a mass of articles were created that no one has any intention of updating. As the nominator says they offer no more in there current state than the main article. GS we do usually allow articles at this level and it certainly wouldn't have less coverage than the English National League. However it is my view they should be deleted. Blethering Scot 21:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 19:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Contrary to the claim above, Albion are not a professional club. Number 5 7 14:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS. The club do no play in a fully professional league, nor in the top tier of their respective country therefore, by neither count could they be considered to be competing in a "top professional league" per NSEASONS. Perhaps at the end of the season, there will be sufficient significant, non-routine, reliable coverage to create an article comprising significant elements of sourced prose, but not at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG Spiderone 19:46, 8 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) 12:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Brechin City F.C. season[edit]

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

Article is unnecessary, offers no more content or context than available at Brechin City F.C. and is unlikely to be updated. Exxy (talk) 20:24, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 17:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These are professional clubs and I'm fairly certain with work they could meet GNG, however a mass of articles were created that no one has any intention of updating. As the nominator says they offer no more in there current state than the main article. GS we do usually allow articles at this level and it certainly wouldn't have less coverage than the English National League. However it is my view they should be deleted. Blethering Scot 21:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 19:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Contrary to the claim above, Brechin are not a professional club. Number 5 7 14:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS. The club do no play in a fully professional league, nor in the top tier of their respective country therefore, by neither count could they be considered to be competing in a "top professional league" per NSEASONS. Perhaps at the end of the season, there will be sufficient significant, non-routine, reliable coverage to create an article comprising significant elements of sourced prose, but not at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG Spiderone 19:47, 8 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. DrKiernan (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Potts (film director)[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Potts is a non-notable filmmaker, and at best, a footnote in Dana Plato's story. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

'KEEP' Fred Potts is not non-notable. he was not just a footnote in Dana Plato's life, he was engaged to be married to her. If this is just a footnote of someone life then WikiDan61 has a small life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viktoriasoviet (talk • contribs)
Keep does not meet WP:DEL-REASON. Romantic interests in Dana Plato pending marriage is notable. Mango 03:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC) — Mangoclowns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete WP:INHERITED, WP:BLP1E. A search for sources is difficult due to the genuinely notable war hero of the same name, but I don't think there's anything out there. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

""Delete""" Knows some ""Hollywood"" people and Dana Plato but not notable on own. wally 22:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escapement (talk • contribs)
Keep less worthy people on Wikipedia. Majorsmithers (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Invalid argument. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Confirmed sockpuppets' !votes striken. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on the fact that the article was created by a confirmed sock puppet, WP:CSD#G5 applies. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 19:18, 3 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 African supercentenarians. Any sourced content worth merging is available in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Sinédia-Cazour[edit]

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

No overall notability for a stand-alone article. She was not even in the top 10 of the oldest women in the world of all, and only the 10th-oldest French person ever (she was briefly the oldest French person). She was once the oldest woman from the French possession of Reunion (now Maria Diaz but this is an island with a population of less than 900k in 2013) and the second oldest African person of all time. The actual sourced and relevant contents of any biography on her would be her birth and death dates and location information (the remaining ranking details are basically WP:SYNTHESIS from editors) so I would suggest deletion or a merger to List of African supercentenarians. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of African supercentenarians. A mini biography could be created there like this at List of British supercentenarians, for example. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable supercentenarian. No justification for stand-alone article. Removing all unsourced statements leaves you with nothing other than a name, age and country of residence. All information that is already available in other longevity articles. CommanderLinx (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stand-alone article and merge with List of African supercentenarians. Quis separabit? 14:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of African supercentenarians per nom. Ca2james (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 19:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing to meet WP:N. Any material of encyclopedic merit can, as suggested, be included in longevity-related lists, such as List of African supercentenarians. Canadian Paul 18:48, 8 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) 12:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gadjah Putih Jati Wisesa[edit]

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

Non-notable martial art. No indication that this meets WP:MANOTE as a significant martial art or that there is enough reliable independent coverage to meet GNG. Of the two references given, this art is not specifically mentioned in the 1992 book and I couldn't find a copy of the 1979 book. Perhaps it can be merged or redirected to another of the pencak silat articles, but there's nothing here to show it deserves its own article.Mdtemp (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My own search for this martial art found no significant independent coverage of it. I also found no indication that it meets any of the martial arts notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Nothing to show it's a notable martial art. Jakejr (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also had trouble looking for coverage even when looking for the pre-1991 name Gajah Putih Mega Paksi. Ended up with music rather than martial art.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing good at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 10 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 Impossible Princess by creator. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Say Hey (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. No independent coverage in third party reliable sources, no chart performance, no independent live coverage or performances. The only sources that speak of the song are album reviews, and per NSONGS, when this is the case, the song can usually be redirected and incorporated into the album article easily. Azealia911 _talk 16:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of this page, I am going to Redirect the pages to the parent album. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 04:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronen Shilo[edit]

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

Reading through these sources, it appears that Shilo is in no way independently notable from Conduit; at that, none of these sources are really about Shilo, but about Conduit, which already has its own page. Without significant GNG showing Shilo himself as notable, there is no real reason to have this page. Grump International (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (1) None of the sources is substantial coverage of Shilo. (2) Searches for information about him produce mostly sites such as LinkedIn, Twitter, about.me/ronenshilo, businessinsider, Crunchbase, YouTube, FaceBook etc etc: no sign of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. (Note: the article was created by a single-purpose account, with no edits not related to Shilo and his busines.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the deletion nominator is almost a single purpose account, but one that looks to have had previous experience before using this login due to their knowledge of procedures here and skill in Wikimarkup. But in any case the page should be just judged on its merits not on the personalities involved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment: deletion nominator's account, User: Grump International appears to be a sock puppet and should, therefore, not be counted toward consensus. Nominator shows extensive knowledge of procedures here and skill in Wikimarkup, but their account is only a year old and has a handful of edits. This entry for Ronen Shilo and the related entry for Conduit (publisher network and platform) have come under repeated attack over the past few years and both have had to be protected by admins. Note that the nominator is simultaneously challenging the articles of related entries Conduit (company), where Shilo is CEO and Perion Network, which acquired a major part of Shilo's company. The use of a sock puppet account for all these simultaneous challenges to related entries suggests the nominator is biased and may have an undisclosed WP:COI.BC1278 (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Keep He's the CEO of Israel's largest Internet company but apparently hasn't granted many in-depth interviews, but given his prominence it's worth trying to find a way to keep him. As the company I run has a business relationship with Conduit, I have a WP:COI. I've never edited this article. I see it could use more sourcing, so I created a new proposed draft on my sandbox here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BC1278/sandbox It includes articles focused on just him from Fast Company magazine and Inc. Magazine, both very high quality sources, as well as more information about his early and personal life from Israel magazine sources. I'll also put the request on the article's Talk page for the sandbox edit to be considered. I also see the article has seven named contributors over three years, two of whom, User: Diannaa and User: Bearcat are admins of Wikipedia. BC1278 (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
comment The draft looks to be an improvement, but Fast Company does not look to be independent as Ronen Shilo has written for them. So it looks to be a author profile. Is the Technion entry independent? I cannot read Hebrew so I can't tell. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an extended profile of him by the magazine of the university. Technion – Israel Institute of Technology is like MIT in Israel so it would have the equivalent value of a high-quality alumni magazine. You can read about the world ranking of the university, which is one indication of the quality of their magazine, in the Academic section of the Wikipedia entry. I'll see if I can find some more sources.BC1278 (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

I found another interview with Shilo on Pando Daily, a prominent tech website with well regarded journalism. Added it to the sandbox draft. I have reached out to friends who can do searches on Google's Hebrew version. It is hard to believe he could lead the largest Internet company and second largest technology company in Israel without attracting extensive personal profiles press, but that seems to be the case. He wrote a essay in Fast Company about why he avoided the press.^[1] BC1278 (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

comment: As per WP: NOTABILITY "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." According to this essay in Fast Company,^[1] Shilo intentionally avoided the press, even though he runs the largest Internet company in Israel (second largest tech company), which when it had 100 million users was the 29th most popular site on the entire Internet, and peaked at 260 million users. The website had more users than Twitter at the time. He maintained majority ownership of his company, which was valued at $1.3 billion. See Conduit (company) for citations for all of the prior information. While it appears to me like he's only consented to one in-depth profile (in Hebrew), I did find may sources where he speaks to the press about his company, finance, Israel and technology. e.g. the Wall Street Journal^[2] (“Conduit’s vision is to grow the company and keep the headquarters in Israel,” Conduit CEO Ronen Shiloh said. “We want to be a global Internet company. Having a company at this stage that’s all Israelis is overall better for the state of Israel.”), Financial Times^[3] ("Short-term investments have gained Israel a second nickname, “Quick-Sell Nation,” said Ronen Shilo, founder and CEO of Conduit, which recently became Israel’s first billion-dollar Internet company."), Inc. Magazine ^[4] ("As part of our series on entrepreneurs whose companies are worth $1 billion, Inc staff writer Jeremy Quittner spoke with Shilo about his billion-dollar valuation, the social worth of a company, and doing the laundry."), Haaretz ^[5] (Four Reasons Not to Hate Israel's Big Business Tycoons, "...Ronen Shilo ‏(Conduit‏) [has] in fact shunned the quick buck of an M&A deal and stayed the course.").

References

^ ^a ^b Shilo, Ronen (2 March 2012). "A CEO Speaks Our About Speaking Out". Fast Company. Retrieved 31 July 2015.
^ McMahan, Ty (July 7, 2014). "Burgers and Acquisitions: Lunch in NYC Leads to a Deal in Israel". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July 14, 2014.
^ Lisa Damast and Jessica McHugh (June 6, 2012). "Israeli VC struggles continue despite M&A increase". Financial Times. Retrieved March 13, 2013. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Jeremy Quittner (January 1, 2013). "The "Real Valuation" Is About Having Fun". Inc. Magazine. Retrieved March 13, 2013. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Rosenberg, David (29 September 2012). "Four Reasons Not to Hate Israel's Big Business Tycoons". Haaretz. Retrieved 23 August 2015.

Comment - I only see the above as proving how the CEO is not independently notable from the company he ran. I just don't see enough here to meet GNG, something mixed with rather slanderous accusations above. Either way, I just don't see how Wikipedia needs this suite of articles on a fairly narrow subject. Ronen Shilo, Perion Network, Conduit (publisher network and platform), the now deleted Como page, Conduit (company)--just feels like spam to me. Of them all, Shilo is the least notable. Grump International (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User: Graeme Bartlett decided to split Conduit (company) and Conduit (publisher network and platform) into separate articles. Conduit was a bigger platform than Twitter, by monthly users, just a couple of years back and has been the subject of hundreds of news articles. Conduit (publisher network and platform) is defunct as part of Conduit, but the admin wished to preserve it because the article has attracted dozens of editors over many years. It needs a massive clean up and could also exist in the history section of the company. Perion Network is a separate, publicly traded NASDAQ company that acquired a large asset from Conduit. It's pretty obviously notable as a NASDAQ company. As for Ronen Shilo, I won't repeat myself again, but obviously the CEOs of large and important companies (e.g. like Conduit, the second largest technology company in Israel just a year ago and one of the top 30 websites in the world, according to Google) who have been written about widely (if not deeply), are in a very different category than the CEOs of small companies that just barely qualify as notable. As I've been open about my COI, and made no direct edits on Ronen Shilo or on any of these articles, I'd request that user User: Grump International please reveal his/her primary Wikipedia account(s) so we can check if they've been one of the attackers rebuffed by admins over the years on this and the Conduit article, as bias will affect consensus. User: Grump International has used this account for just a year to write articles about a small Florida real estate broker, a single condominium building, and a minor architect and it's just very hard to assume good faith given that their Wikipedia skill level could not have been achieved with these simple edits. I could understand the motivation of a purist intent on Wikipedia being used for articles about only the most important of people in the world, but not the nominator, who used this small account to contribute substantially to obviously promotional articles like Vanessa Grout, a very minor, unknown real estate broker in south Florida. And yet is challenging an article about the CEO and founder of one of the largest Internet companies in the world. So knowing the editor's main account(s) seems relevant. BC1278 (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

All I read above are paranoid personal attacks and no further evidence that Shilo is notable. I remain in the delete column. Grump International (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to recommend that the draft in my sandbox replace the current article so consensus can be reached around an improved article with better sourcing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BC1278/sandbox I can't make any direct edits myself (other than adding citations) because I have a WP: COI, explained above.BC1278 (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

You can read the details of the nominator's undisclosed COI editing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Brickell_Flatiron An admin on the WP:COIN board immediately placed two of User: Grump International's promotional articles up for speedy deletion and Grump did not contest in either case. All Grump's contributions, except for two minor revisions, prior to the nomination of the Shilo article, fall into the COI category. The COI investigation into Grump on the COIN board continues. Grump's use of Wikipedia to advance undisclosed personal agendas is clear. Grump's nomination and opinion should not count toward consensus.BC1278 (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Again, I suggest you stop bullying other users. No COI was found; the articles were deleted for CRYSTAL, not COI (and were prodded, not put up for speedy deletion--and one of the two was fairly quickly de-prodded by other editors as even under CRYSTAL the article was notable; additionally, I did not write that article myself, only made a minor edit). I did not contest because they were right. You, however, as you can see from my previous sentence, are incorrect. I read your sandbox; still recommend deletion. Grump International (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User: Grump International's use of this account as an undisclosed COI is self-evident - just read the WP:COIN complain above. The formal adjudication on the account will take some time, but corrective action on two articles was taken immediately. Other experience editors, not me, described the user's contributions as "blatant[ly] promotion" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Brickell_Flatiron by User:Nagle and "borderline spam" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grump_International&diff=677850261&oldid=677824535 by B137 Note that Grump deleted from their Talk page the comment from B137 that their contribution was both a NPOV violation and borderline spam. I bring all this up because the user has a clear history of undisclosed COI editing and bias, plus the use of a "near single-purpose account" with very Wikipedia few edits prior to this deletion nomination despite very sophisticated Wikipedia mark up and policy skills picked up on undisclosed account(s) (i.e. a probable sock puppet) --- so their opinion should not count toward consensus on this article. This and a related article cited above has had a history of attacks over several years, prompting protected and semi-protected status. Calling out Grump's undisclosed COI account challenging a frequently attacked article and related subject is not harassment because it is directly relevant to whether their opinion counts toward consenses. Why was an editor with just a few small edits at the time patrolling other articles for deletion and "news release" flagging Conduit (company)? Given the Grump account had no recorded interaction with other editors BC1278 (talk) prior to this deletion nomination, where did they learn their Wikipedia mark up and policy skills? Since some of their own handful of contributions have been challenged as "blatant promotion", "spam" and violating NPOV, why does Grump feel qualified to weigh in here at all, unless this account is a sock for a main account where they have much more experience? 18:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

You know this is a deletion debate about Ronen Shilo, right? You have lost your battle at COIN, and have not evidence of sockpuppetry, because, alas, no such thing has occurred. I highly suggest you stop bullying others and being addressing the problems with the articles you have taken an interest in. Again, I see no reason why Shilo is independently notable from Conduit, and thus there is no reason for Wikipedia to have an article about him. Grump International (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your history of undisclosed COI editing is highly relevant because it indicated your opinion here should not count toward consensus. The COI discussion as to your account and articles is ongoing at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Brickell_Flatiron. An editor on that board has just been notified that you removed a proposed deletion tag on an article you created about a proposed condominium that he deemed "blatantly promotional" - you added new material but left in all the promotional spam. Your promotional edit to Brickell Flatiron was removed entirely. The editors on WP:COIN will reach consensus on what to do with your account and contributions with time. It's not an instant decision. In the meantime, your history of what several editors have now characterized as inserting promotional material and spam into articles (the definition of COI) makes it clear to me at least, that you do not disclose personal bias and are likely to have one here, too.BC1278 (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)BC278[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 3 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) 12:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Bhaskaran Rathinam[edit]

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

Article created by now-blocked sock master, also responsible for the one film that this subject, an otherwise non-notable person, is reportedly making (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meen (2015 film). Only claim of notability can come from that film, and it's too soon for it (cast isn't even announced). Drmies (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as his career makes this article TOO SOON. Some non-sock might consider recreating it in the future if inclusion criteria are ever met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. For related articles and issues, see ANI report and SPI report. Abecedare (talk) 16:07, 4 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) 12:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meen (2015 film)[edit]

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

Too soon. The cast of this isn't even announced. Article creator Kreativekkonnect is blocked as a socking editor making lots of promotional edits. See also Hari Bhaskaran Rathinam. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary delete per being TOO SOON. Enough sources are available so that it be reasonable that it canj be spoken of in the article of director Hari Bhaskaran Rathinam as one of his planned projects, but since it has not begun filming it fails WP:NFF. Allow a return once filming is confirmed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and this being one of a series of articles created by editors/socks with conflict of interest, who also apparently run some movie and music PR websites; see ANI report and SPI report. Note that while The Hindu and Indian Express articles may appear notable on first sight, those are published in local supplements of the two newspapers, which as has been discussed at WP:RSN previously are not high-quality sources as they often publish lightly edited press-releases (as is clearly the case here, given the overlap in language of the two articles). Abecedare (talk) 16:03, 4 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) 18:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reelmonk[edit]

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

Are three articles enough for a company to warrant inclusion? The articles do more than mention the joint or give their URL, I will agree with that, but whether that makes this outfit notable, I have my doubts. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extensive news coverage in major Indian newspapers and going beyond press releases, meeting GNG. I found and added an additional launch-day article in English and coverage in Tamil as well as Malayalam, plus a follow-up story also in a major paper. I've tweaked the writing to make it more neutral. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Reelmonk

Keep as suitable stub article. Though they need sorting, sources indicate the topic meets WP:ORG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article does meet WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it seems marginally acceptable for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 10 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. Swarm ♠ 20:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vardan Bichakhchyan[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) (Armenian)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a football manager who fails WP:GNG and who has not managed a club in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator based on their intention to expand the article. This in no way address the notability concerns. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is the manager of a professional team that regulary plays at the preliminary rounds of the UEFA European club competitions. He is managing the team since 2011. I do not see any reason to reject such an article. Currently, he is considered one of the most successful football managers in Armenia.--Spetsnaz1991 (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Spetsnaz1991: do you have a source to back up the statement "he is considered one of the most successful football managers in Armenia"? Spiderone 21:16, 4 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.

Comments above by Spetsnaz1991 are misguided. Current consensus is that NFOOTY is only satisfied by participation in contental competition when the player in question has played firstly in the competition proper and secondly is involved in a match between two clubs both from fully professional leagues.

Furthermore, the argument that Shirak is a professional club is irrelevant. NFOOTY is clear that professionalism needs to be "full" and that full professionalism needs to be league wide and there is no consensus at WP:FOOTY that the Armenian league is fully professional.

The only sources provided are to player databases that do not provide significant coverage and therefore do not support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More sources and details were added and included.--Spetsnaz1991 (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided in the references section though aren't coverage of him as a manager, its him talking very briefly about the club. I'm not seeing significant coverage there that contains worthwhile elements to be used in his article. Fenix down (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merger to Shirak Gyumr. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Spetsnaz1991 and the massive volume of coverage in Armenian sources. It's pretty obvious he is of a high profile. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG criteria. --Jimbo^[online] 12:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The coverage displayed in the article's sources is routine and run-of-the-mill stuff and so it fails WP:GNG. It also fails WP:NFOOTY as others have already said. Spiderone 21:15, 4 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) 18:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional theatres[edit]

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

Not a single one of these fictional theaters appears to be notable enough for its own article. The entire list fails WP:SALAT, WP:CSC and WP:LSC. I can't imagine how "this list contributes to the state of human knowledge" per SALAT.

Note that this has been {{Prod}}ed twice by two different editors and {{prod2}} once by me. The Dissident Aggressor 16:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There may be examples that are notable, but none of them are on this list, so even then, WP:TNT would apply. I'm also going to nominate List of fictional railway stations and List of fictional rapid transit stations. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it fails WP:SALAT. --Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guest book) 11:42, 6 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 per A7 by user:Orangemike. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dotti J[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (music) –Angelo 6397 ^{T A L K!} 15:23, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: subject fails secondary sources criterion--OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:27, 3 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) 18:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zarah Shah[edit]

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

Person not notable. References cited are inapt. This ref is a quoted twice; is from a cricketing website and not totally reliable. This source just shows a tweet with his twitter handle. this, this, this, this, this and this sources do not even mention his name. It is his father who is mentioned in all the references. IMDb is also cited, which is not a reliable source. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has done precisely nothing notable. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NSPORTS or (per the issues highlighted by the nominator with the provided references) doesn't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV under the GNG guideline. Guliolopez (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing good to suggest meaningful better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 10 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) 18:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anxiety in student athletes[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:OR. reddogsix (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Not only is this original research, it also misrepresents the contents of cited sources. I checked two of the cited sources for their applicability to the referenced material. Reclaiming the Game: College Sports and Educational Values only mentions anxiety in passing, in a different context than discussed here (specifically, admissions), and makes no mention of anxiety disorders whatsoever. Perhaps more critically, the International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology paper, "The role of approach-avoidance versus task and ego goals in enjoyment and cognitive anxiety in youth sport" (available here via ResearchGate) is a fairly technical paper about the effects of various approach-avoidance goals on anxiety measures. Despite its use in this article, it says literally nothing about medical or psychological treatment for anxiety whatsoever. I have no opinion as to whether an article on this topic is possible; this article, however, can only be deleted. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Squeamish Ossifrage and WP:TNT. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Perhaps the creator could print it out and use it for school, but this is not the sort of thing we do here at Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 07:39, 10 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) 18:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Younis Hassan[edit]

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

This biographical article is sourced entirely to a site called evi.com which hosts a question and answer forum (much like Yahoo! Answers) where a question was asked "Who won the Sitara-e-Jurat"? and this person's name was listed as an answer based on the Wikipedia article about Sarfaraz Ahmed Rafiqui (who is documented at that article to have won the award). The Rafiqui article had recently (on 18 Aug 2015) been altered to add "Khawaja Younis Hassan Shaheed" to Rafiquis name (leading to a very long eight-part name, excessive even by Pakistani standards) with no source quoted for the addition. That addition has been reverted, but basing this article on that flimsy sourcing is quite insufficient. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as utterly non-notable per nom. Quis separabit? 13:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if he is the recipient of a second- and a third-level award he does not pass WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't meet the requirements of the WP:GNG, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 5 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. WP:SNOW. As noted below, it is standard to maintain such lists and restrict them only to notable entries, such that the inclusion criteria is the same as the corresponding category. Length is clearly not even an issue at this time, and even if it became too lengthy deletion is not the solution, as has also been noted below. The nominator should pay closer attention to the first lines of WP:NOTDIR, as well as read WP:NOTDUP and WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Delhi[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. This list tends to be too exhaustive has the potential of being overly long. ~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 11:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Part of a series of Category:Lists of Indians by state. Clearly defined inclusion criteria for a group of notable people. The only rationale presented is that it'll be "overly long". That's not a valid reason to delete. The article can be split into sub-pages as and when needed per WP:SIZE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Too long then don't read. See no rationale for deletion. Its part of Category:Lists of people by place. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Guys! chill. I have no issues keeping this list if it has a proper inclusion criteria. I couldn't find it mentioned anywhere. And I thought this list will include all people of Delhi, which would be absurd. I would also like to mention that I had invoked WP:NOTDIR as the reason and added the too long clause for a little more weight. I noticed that all the people mentioned have their own Wiki article. Is that the Criteria? If it is, then what is the requirement of a List when we already have it??~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 04:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list and category both can coexist.Shyamsunder (talk) 06:59, 4 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 delete by Deb—see below.(non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Bansal Journalist[edit]

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

The article did not meet the notability guideline for biographies. . Shlok _{talk .} 11:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Clearly promotional. And I did it before I saw the notice of the deletion discussion. Deb (talk) 11:41, 3 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. Per consensus. Wikipedia is not a newspaper covering run of the mill events. Philg88 ^♦talk 12:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Mangaluru youth assult[edit]

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

A very local criminal act covered by local media sources. No notable in the wider world, despite being deplorable and highly reprehensible. Regrettably if we included all such acts as Wikipedia articles the encyclopaedia would be overwhelmed Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Media sources are national not local but can be merged with other moral policing incidents of Bajrang Dal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotapuranu (talk • contribs) 19:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The "assult" was not a "public lynching" as claimed, but rather a beating. If it had involved a death, maybe it would have merited an article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Clarityfiend. Do you really think mocking the spelling error in the title of an article by non-native speakers of English is really necessary or helpful. No wonder we have such a WP:GEOBIAS when this sort of behaviour occurs from several editors. AusLondonder (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In India (not to mention in many non-English speaking countries, "lynch" is used in situations in sentences in which Americans would use a phrase such as "was attacked by an angry mob", it echoes the nature of an old-time white mob lynching a nigger, but in India and many other countreis where the English word appears in headlines in other languages, it refers only to the fact that an attack was made by a gang or mob motivated by race or ethnic hatred, with the attention to harm (beat, murder, stone) but not specifically to hang the victim.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: for its ~~dishonest, misleading and~~ exploitative crux. Sadly, in the world in which we live, conflicts are increasing and not decreasing, and not every ~~conflicts without~~ incident, even with fatalities (aside from exceptional cases such as the 3 Americans and 1 Briton who stopped the jihadist on that Paris-Amsterdam train) are notable per se. Quis separabit? 11:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say it "dishonest" and "exploitative crux"? I used the title because many news sources and TV channels showed that title such as The Hindu itself. I didn't know it requires deaths for inclusion as I have seen similar articles like 2012 Fatehpur violence which doesn't involve any deaths. Anyway, please, do not make blind allegations. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotapuranu (talk • contribs) 12:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting User:[email protected] that you say the attack on the train travelling from Paris-Amsterdam was stopped by "four Americans". As '2015_Thalys_train_attack#Passengers_involved makes clear, those awarded the Legion of Honour were actually three Americans and one British man, and the other passengers which prevented the attack were actually four French people (including a dual citizen). I can only assume you are an American wishing to confirm many national stereotypes? I also find it interesting that when "Americans stop a Jihadist" you feel that is "exceptional" and worthy of an article, but anything happening in the Global South probably is not. WP:GEOBIAS anyone? Any Indian looking at this deletion nomination, please realise not all Westerners are like this :) AusLondonder (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I agree with User:Kotapuranu above. What makes the article "dishonest" or "exploitative"? Such emotive language seems rather odd. AusLondonder (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think the article should clearly have been renamed prior to nominaiton. It seems keeping "assult" as title is a silent attempt to discredit. AusLondonder (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, to all: I reworded my prior comments and apologize for anything that offended anyone. As far as the 3 Americans (the British man himself acknowledged that he would not have done anything had it not been for the 3 Americans) I reworded that also for accuracy. Quis separabit? 02:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least for now. Coverage [18] was national. Hindu-on-Muslim and Muslim-on-Hindu violence are serious issues in the subcontinent, which is why this incident was covered nationwide. However, 5 days after the crime is too soon to assess ongoing impact, so, keep and revisit in 6 months or so - after the dust has settled.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article making it precise with the help of multiple national level news sources.Kotapuranu (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also have a feeling that if a similar incident, say a Muslim vigilante gang attacked a Christian for talking to a Muslim in New York coverage would be blanket for weeks on end and any suggestion of deletion would be rightly laughed at. AusLondonder (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing to show this meets the notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 08:16, 3 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) 18:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Dalal[edit]

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

The sources presented in the businessman's article comprise most of what there is to be found on Google and Google News about him. They are all interviews, with a brief couple of paragraphs of adulation followed by Dalal talking. I don't think this constitutes the in-depth or widespread coverage in independent, reliable sources which is required by the GNG. BethNaught (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: As per WP:PEOPLE --Badnaam (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Indisputably non-notable. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 10 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian ParaPara Dance Association[edit]

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

My searches found nothing good at all and although it seems their website is not working, I was able to retrieve it here. Considering it has Japanese interests, I'm not sure if they would be any Japanese coverage. The article has hardly been edited since October 2006 and as a orphan there's no move target. Pinging the only possibly interested user J Milburn. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching "ブラジル +パラパラ" (Brazil +Para Para) per nom's request and did not turn up anything. It's hard to even see hits with both keywords together, and even if they have both they do not coherently relate. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 06:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the above points. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. Not even close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:41, 3 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. Consensus is that the content doesn't belong and a redirect may be ok. If anyone wants to redirect to the film, that's fine. —SpacemanSpiff 04:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pranav Pradeep[edit]

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

The URL's used within the article are fully bare URL's. No significance found for this article. The user is creating lot of pages like this and confusing the Wikipedia patrolling team by using a lot of bare URL's. Josu4u (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Palakkattu Madhavan - I'm not entirely familiar with those dance shows (or their significance) but my searches found nothing good and this may be one of his best known things (especially acting wise). SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We do not delete aticles because of improperly formatting references. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the claims in the article rise to the level of establishing notability as we generally consider it, and I'm not entirely certain that the references provide significant coverage in reliable sources even for those claims. Also, this article's creator is associated with some problematic contributions; although this one does appear to use references that actually mention the subject, I'll note that the image is up for speedy deletion at Commons as a mis-attributed copyright violation. All told, I don't think this meets WP:N, and I do think we're better off without it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:28, 3 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armstrong Audio[edit]

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

I would've let this article be if it wasn't that it needs more sources but all my searches found nothing good aside from this and this (the latter is a few business listings from the 1950s and '60s). Given its age, sources may not be easily accessible but there certainly would've been something (especially if it was widespread in the 1960s and '70s as the article says or especially something of its demise). SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hike The Monicas (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UncertainIt will be necessary to check reviews for this period, and they won't be online. DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - They look to have been a big frigging deal back in the Australian music scene in the 70s (yes, that's an advertisement, but I don't see any indication that they're lying), but that's pretty hard to find more information about. I'm inclined to trim the article down and maybe keep working on it. I have mixed feelings on this one... which leans to a 'keep' at least for now. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, adding to the confusion, it looks like the term 'Armstrong Audio' as a shortening is used both for the Armstrong Studios company and the company at issue here. The two don't seem to be connected, but I'm not sure. That's frustrating. To top that off, it looks like there's even another 'Armstrong Audio' project that surfaced in the U.S! CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see snippets of things about what I believe is the original British company back in the 60s, but none of it really is availible. I guess I'm going now with Neutral CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' I've contacted the man who keeps the website and has archives on this topic.[19] He informs me that he does have reviews and other documentation on the subject and would like to see this article sustained. He also informs me that he has a life and won't be able to drop everything to update his website/Wikipedia. I've offered to help, and let him know that the references do not initially need to be online. I've also offered to help with formatting the refs/mentoring, so I will refrain from voting. 009o9 (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a "Product reviews" section. A list reviews that does/did exist was sent to me. The curator of this information (in the UK) is researching his options, copyright etc. before posting reproductions of the reviews on his website. 009o9 (talk) 01:15, 6 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) 12:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Al-Bazi[edit]

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

My searches found nothing here, here, here and here to suggest better and independent notability and there's also no good move target (orphan); at best this would be best mentioned elsewhere as part of another article you. This is interesting and he may be locally notable but I'm not seeing wholly time-worthy improvement. SwisterTwister talk 03:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly by A7, becasuse there is no indication of importance by our standards. DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG I wanted to notify you the article has now changed. SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I sourced the article. More could be done, but editors should look at sources now in the article before commenting. Reasons given by Nom, and DGG's suggestion of A7 no longer apply and DG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on source verification, does not meet GNG because of WP:NOTINHERITED. This article is being used as a central dump point for tangentially connected items and events related to the article subject, but the subject himself is not notable because of the related coverage. The two Monitor sources only give trivial mention to al-Bazi for quotes and brief overview; there's no real bio in either case, and the actual "depth of coverage" is on his school (in the Christian Science Monitor case), and on education in a refugee camp he is managing (in the Al-Monitor). Kember's book is about Kember (per Amazon), not al-Bazi (unclear from title alone), and is used to mention the church's demographics, not explicitly al-Bazi - possible synthesis there. Lastly, the BBC World Service is a radio program, of which the first eight minutes of the overall hour is given over to al-Bazi's kidnapping, which occurred in 2006, nowhere close to the church coverage in 2010 or the BBC coverage in 2015. In that instance, it's maybe BLP1E for the kidnapping (though one news report isn't depth of coverage either). MSJapan (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update Previous comment obsolete because article is now completely rewritten and far better sourced. Father Douglas makes a rather compelling story. Anybody want to help me improve it and maybe nominate it for DKY. To show how collaborative etiting at AFD can improve Wikipedia in wonderful ways?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again to evaluate the rewrite Courcelles (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No change from previous vote - there are now 13 sources. The first source is the aforementioned radio program, most of which is about the church. 2 and 8 are the aforementioned Monitors. 3 is the Catholic Review, where the ransom claim is, but al-Bazi gets less mention than the other guy. 4 is still Kember. 5 is about the kidnapping, 6 through 10 are really about "Christians in the Middle East." 11 is in Italian, but they spoke to Bashar Warda about the camp, and al-Bazi isn't mentioned - it's also short. 12 is also very short. 13 isn't really all that much more informative than 3 Most of the coverage is about the camp/center that he happens to run. I'm also going to state that I think E.M.Gregory is sourcing everything from this BBC program and then adding sources that have al-Bazi mentioned in it to try to show coverage when those claims do not appear in those sources. Still not notable. MSJapan (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A sad case. I had not wanted to drag this into the discussion, but User:MSJapan has been WP:WIKIHOUNDING me for weeks. He has repeatedly stated a desire to drive me off Wikipedia. My suspicion that there may be mental health issues involved has led me to try and ignore him, individuals with mental stability issues often cease their attacks if ignored. It really is sad.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this on-topic E.M.Gregory. Thanks! samtar^{(leave me a message)} 22:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editors reading the sources will see that MSJapan's assertions are unsupported.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, funny how that happens when you remove the failed verification tags. How about this discussion, where you did not refute with proof a single removal I made? MSJapan (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article looks fine now, BBC and Christian Science Monitor sources meet notability, other references indicate there is enough information available to create and interesting article. 009o9 (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Except the sources aren't "fine" which is why I went through them all. Nothing has changed in the sourcing from my previous comment other than E.M.Gregory removed all the failed verification tags and cited something else to a source in which it does not appear. The sourcing problems still exist. By the way, the whole reason I verify sources is because AfD voters look at source titled and figure they're OK because the publication is OK. The problem here is that the source does not say what the source is claimed to say. MSJapan (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still think it should be deleted, as NOT NEWS. It's ca relatively minor incident in the long series of ISIs-related horrors. There is no reason to think it will become part of the historical record in any significant way. Do we possibly have a group article to merge or rexdirect to? DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Well, honestly, it's hard to say; the 2006 kidnapping of the article subject I think should be Taliban, not ISIS, based on timeframe, and it's never specified as to who did it. The refugee camp stuff is not related to the kidnapping, and refers to Christians as refugees, but (as best as the sources for this article say) not specifically to who or what caused them to be there. So I think we have a SYNTH problem if we try to put it anywhere without proof of such, and nowhere we can put everything. To be fair, though, I'm concerned myself with sources already here, and haven't looked for other sources which might offer some corroboration, although you'd think at least one out of 13 (at last count) would. MSJapan (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

Here [20] is a simple news google search on : Douglas al Bazi Irbil. Many, many articles describing his refugee work, especially in the Polish, Spanish and Italian press. DWhether he knows more languages, or gives a better interview, or runs a better refugee camp than others who have set up refugee camps in Iraqi Kurdistan I do not know. But he has clearly become something of a public figure. Perhaps journalists like the idea of a man kidnapped and beaten by Islamists in 2006, now running a refugee camp for people fleeing ISIS-style Islamism in Iraq. Note that i did not create this article. I found it at AFD and did as I regularly do , i.e., I checked the Nom's assertion that "My searches found nothing." And when my searches instantly found a lot, I sourced the article. To me, this is a no-brainer: when a guy has sources like this, his page is a keeper. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion] for the validity of "your sources" - Googling for a name hit and then pasting random titles isn't sourcing when the information isn't in there. MSJapan (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please withdraw that accusation, you have made it repeatedly. In fact, any editor who takes the time to review my edits will see that I added new sources when I added points of information found in those edits, changing the article as I went along. And, sometimes, adding a second or third source, when I happened to find a second or third source for a particular aspect of his career. I had never heard of Al Bazi before I happened on this AFD. OF COURSE I searched for information on him. That's what I do at AFD. In this case, I found so much, that over the course of a week or so, I went back and improved the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will not withdraw an accusation based firmly on what the sources say, and to which you were unable to respond when asked other than to make some vague assertion of "I had no idea". You did not add "sources", you added "titles you found on Google" because if you had read the sources, you would have seen (as I did) that the material cited to those sources did not appear therein. What you actually did was listen to the BBC interview, write it out, and WP:COATRACK that information with other places where al-Bazi's name appeared as a search result. There's no other other possibility, as details you cited to sources simply weren't in those sources, but they were in the BBC interview. Don't attack me personally on my due diligence because you failed to do yours. Also, hard ot AGF on "expanding sources" when editors had to fix all your work before you gave in and did so. MSJapan (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

During the AFD of an article I did not create, I sought additional information about AlBazi, addit it with sources, and also added multiple sources to aspects of his career. You, on the other hand, !voted to delete the article, then deleted reliable sources supporting notability, and made inaccurate statements (i.e. - actually went to an administrators personal talk page to assert that the $170,000 ransom was not supported by sources. Although it was and is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are welcome to do so. I assume that editors act here in good faith, that several editors have !Voted keep because they have read the sources, as I did, and found that the coverage of Al Bazi in them is extensive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - after updating with better sources. Good work--BabbaQ (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good lad. Well sourced. Settleman (talk) 15:21, 9 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 Fullers Group. Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JetRaider[edit]

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

May not meet notability standards. Charlie the Pig (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to either Fullers Group or Fullers Bay of Islands. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Stuartyeates - NealeFamily (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ships-related deletion discussions. NealeFamily (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fullers Group as that seems to be the best option. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 10 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. If there are conduct issues, please take them to WP:ANI where they can be looked into. Courcelles (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia lea clark[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable WP:BIO that only contains two sources: one self-published and one IMDb. Contains claims of notability, but unverified. In addition, the article creator states that she is the subject of the article, making this an autobiography. Gparyani (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I would have speedied this vanity page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything in sources independent of the subject. Flat Out (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as advertisement for allegedly forthcoming book "IN THE MIND OF A KILLER" also being promoted on pinterest. nothing in search on name to indicate notability. no sources in article except link to http://www.cynthialeaclark.com/former/Cynthia_Lea_Clark/Welcome.html.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree completely. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Those who want to participate in this discussion may also want to check this diff of the article creator vandalizing my talk page: Special:Diff/679212381 Gparyani (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(User:Gparyani, as someone who has recently had a berserker WP:WIKIHOUNDING me - now over, I hope - You have my deep sympathy. After the first few days, I dealt with it by ignoring the out-of-control editor. Looks like ignoring him worked. Responding didn't. Good luck.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Found no reliable secondary sources that could establish notability for her at this point in her career. She appears to belong to several organizations, has had a couple of roles as an actress, has done some speaking and written some reviews and articles, but nothing of substance has so far been written about her or her book. ABF99 (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 5 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) 18:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NK Umag[edit]

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

A football team in the 4th tier of Croatian football that consists of 125 clubs. Umag is a town of 13,000 on the coast. Unable to find much about them. Bgwhite (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear failure of WP:GNG Spiderone 07:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find any indication that they have played in a national competition per WP:FOOTYN. Fenix down (talk) 15:23, 8 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. Don't usually close on one !vote but Michitaro has proved she is a notable actress so obvious keep in this case (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sachiko Kokubu[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 04:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kokubu has had a reasonably successful career as an actress and gravure idol (she has appeared in over 100 TV dramas ([21]), including starring in such midday melodramas as the 2004 Memory of Love ([22], [23]) and the 2007 Konjiki no tsubasa ([24], [25], [26])), but she has also garnered much press attention for marrying Hayashiya Sanpei, one of the most famous of the young rakugo performers: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], etc. This is sufficient to pass both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 5 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) 18:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D.C. United–LA Galaxy rivalry[edit]

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

Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY. PROD contested by the articles creator. Claiming that the rivalry has received heavy coverage. But I don't see any significant coverage. As a matter of fact, this is not even a rivalry. – Michael (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG, one of many cases of an article written about a statistical rivalry, rather than a tangible rivalry. The only reference which actually describes DC vs LA as a pair of combatants is routive coverage in the lead-up to a game, and it makes no mention of a rivalry – it merely describes the successes of the two clubs. The other references support different facts which have been put in the article, but the author is just using those facts to synthesize or exaggerate a rivalry which doesn't appear to exist. Aspirex (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing more than a collection of results with no indication that this is anything more than a non-notable rivalry Spiderone 17:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of articles online and in media that support the existence of the rivalry. 128.172.33.45 (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an example please? Spiderone 17:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's also important to note that existence is not the same as notability. Fenix down (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aspirex sums this up perfectly, this is a statistical rivalry, not anything tangible as a rivalry in the same sense as something Old Firm. NRIVALRY requires GNG to be met and I am not seeing significant coverage of the notion of a rivalry outside brief mentions in routine match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 15:21, 8 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'll happily restore and file a procedural renomination if the Spanish Wikipedia turns up sources, just come ask me. Courcelles (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plein to Spain[edit]

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

My searches found nothing good at all and the author started the Spanish Wiki article with...you got it! No sources or other information and I can't even find any good related websites for this so who knows if it still exists. SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found that's not dependent to this article, even while looking up its Spanish name. Natalia da Rocha and Rainbow Worx seems to be genuine according to this website. TheGGoose (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG, sad that it lasted this long. Just prodded the eswiki article. Vrac (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vrac Muchas gracias, hermano and fellow Spanish speaker!

SwisterTwister talk 21:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jajaja órale, que siga con su buen trabajo! Vrac (talk) 22:05, 8 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) 18:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Lopez (soccer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 04:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has received no extensive coverage and hasn't made any professional appearances Spiderone 21:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, only appeared in El Salvador. MYS 77 ^✉ 19:47, 5 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) 15:18, 8 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) 18:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Sterlyng[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG and PORNBIO Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom is right on target. No claim the subject meets PORNBIO. Negligible, at best, independent reliable sourcing for biographical content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 27 August 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) 03:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after reviewing the sources I don't believe she's notable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:59, 6 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) 18:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Weakness for Spirits[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails general notability guidelines and WP:NALBUM. This is a non-notable album by a band which itself is of questionable notability. Jbh ^Talk 16:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

agree. DeleteNew Media Theorist (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 27 August 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) 03:48, 3 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. I'm going to immediately renominate procedurally as the album has now been released. Courcelles (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Revolution (Darkbuster album)[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails general notability guidelines and WP:NALBUM. This is a non-notable album by a band which itself is of questionable notability. Jbh ^Talk 16:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems this album hasn't been released yet and won't be until September 4, at least according to this source. So it would be no surprise if it wasn't notable yet (WP:TOOSOON). Everymorning (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 27 August 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) 03:47, 3 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) 18:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Group[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:CORP Mdann52 (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not finding significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Some minor trade publication mentions[36], but doesn't meet notability threshold. Note that there are a few other companies also named 'Crown Group' that may be notable[37]. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 12:45, 27 August 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) 03:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this has existed since November 2005 and I found nothing to suggest meaningful better improvement. Pinging past users JzG and MONGO. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 10 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) 17:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gulyani[edit]

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

Possible hoax: Gulyani is a surname, including of the page creator. There are no references to indicate it is also a tribe. Google scholar returns no results for such a tribe Melcous (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability. Creator should have provided a single source to prove it as a tribe. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 05:01, 31 August 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) 03:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that this is in any way real, especially considering Melcous's point about the author's surname being the same as the tribe name. No references, no google hits, no notability. --Cagepanes (talk) 05:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've actually been attempting to find these kind of articles and attempt to improve them but my searches found no signs of improvement here. Feel free to restart once sources and information are better! SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 10 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) 17:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lhea Bernardino[edit]

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

Non-notable model. Sources come down to the Philippine version (not-notable) of a fashion magazine where she places 59 and 60th in their list. No other indications of notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now simply because there are further sources or signs of improvement and the best my searches found was here and here. I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no obvious good target. SwisterTwister talk 02:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 27 August 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) 03:44, 3 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) 12:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FPV Racing[edit]

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

No evidence that this sport meets GNG Gbawden (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft & userfy if wished as my searches only found results like these that say it's "still in its infancy" and there's not much yet. SwisterTwister talk 17:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 27 August 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) 03:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to First-person view (radio control). There is some discussion on the topic (as noted above), but not really enough for it's own article Mysticdan (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom and Mysticdan that there isn't enough here for it's own article, and I would say merge, except the only reference is a commercial site promoting the practice. Searches turned up nothing to show notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 11 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) 17:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarath Rajapatirana[edit]

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

This article appears to have been compiled from a series of brief mentions in the various references provided. It does not appear to satisfy WP:NACADEMICS or WP:BIO based on the information provided. I don't believe that being given a Fullbright Scholar grant is a 'highly prestigious academic award' (criteria #2) or that the books he has written are 'academic work that has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions' (criteria #4). Essentially this is a non-notable individual that an editor has tried to pass off as notable. Dan arndt (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 27 August 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) 03:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:NACADEMICS and WP:GNG.117.223.180.70 (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator that the accomplishments presented in the article, including the Fullbright and the mid-level managerial position at the World Bank, are not enough for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 7 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 British Sign Language. I'm not sure much (or any) of the content should be retained, but that's an editorial matter Courcelles (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let sign shine[edit]

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

Per WP:EVENT. Lasting effect of a local fundraiser (the BBC link is for Norfolk local) is questionable. Also the article seems to be more about the person who organised the event than the actual event. Savonneux (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to British Sign Language. Her petition is to have BSL taught in all schools. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:GNG. We are not Speaker's corner, nor are we a web host for charities. While worthy, this cause is run of the mill and quite small; thus it has not gotten significant coverage in secondary sources. FWIW, I have a hearing-impaired brother. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 31 August 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) 03:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to British Sign Language seems appropriate. There are sources, but they don't seem quite enough to justify a stand-alone article. See BBC, Eastern Daily Press, Dereham Times, The Guardian (a primary source, but being published in the Guardian is significant)... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:47, 7 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) 17:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Krasney[edit]

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

Does not quite meet the requirements of the two relevant notability guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:GNG). His name appears in a few sources that discuss Banner Industries (Krasney was CEO there for some time) but there's very little, if anything, said about him specifically and I don't see how we can therefore create a viable article based on reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there are no signs of worthwhile improvement with my searches only finding this and this (last one is passing). SwisterTwister talk 17:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 27 August 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) 03:36, 3 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) 17:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ariyapala Perera[edit]

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

The subject is a just a professor at a university. Not notable under WP:PROF or WP:GNG. A series of general references provided which mention the subject in passing but do not establish notability Dan arndt (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 26 August 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) 02:18, 27 August 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) 03:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.117.223.180.70 (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without significant press coverage, I don't think the society presidencies mentioned in the article are enough for notability, and I don't see anything else of significance in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing better than some Scholar results. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 10 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) –Davey2010^Talk 01:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Banawa[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable entertainer. Quis separabit? 00:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:NSINGER some of her albums attained gold and platinum status. Well known entertainer at least in the Philippines.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 1 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) 03:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This looks like an open-and-shut case to me. She's a commercially successful singer that's been referenced by many reliable sources. As just one example, her 2001 album Transition got highlighted for praise by Allmusic, being named an 'Album Pick'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Covered in reliable sources, and her music has been featured in several shows and films. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:47, 8 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.

Keep - Sources attest to notability.--Jondel (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Don't usually close on one !vote but Everymorning has proven they meet ENT/MUSICBIO so obvious Keep here (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josefino Cenizal[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable WP:ENT Quis separabit? 00:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a fair amount of reliable source coverage of Cenizal, enough, I think, to meet WP:MUSICBIO: [38] [39] [40] [41] Everymorning (talk) 11:11, 27 August 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) 03:34, 3 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 Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All Saints Catholic School (Connecticut)[edit]

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

No indication that this K-8th grade school passes WP:NSCHOOL or any other notability criteria. Previously briefly redirected to Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport before that was un-done because there was "no discussion." Recommended result: Redirect but keep edit history. Also willing to support redirect without keeping edit history or outright deletion. Going with AFD rather than talk page discussion to 1) see if others recommend deleting history or article entirely and 2) to prevent reverting the redirect without a discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Per standard practice: Blank the page and redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
concur with redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 3 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 Najarpur - Never usually close on one !vote but both nom and kudpung agree it should be rediercted so redirect it shall be. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Krishna Pranami Community Primary School[edit]

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

Elementary schools are rarely notable. No indication that this passes WP:NSCHOOLS, WP:CORP, WP:GNG, or WP:N. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to locality or to school authority as er usual. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I am okay with this as long as the target article mentions this school. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:22, 3 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 delete. Obvious hoax. Mkdw ^talk 04:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Telepathic Mutant Files[edit]

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

This looks more like a personal and in-universe page and my searches found nothing to suggest improvement. I suspect this is quite fabricated and has stayed here for awhile. The editor and other IPs have blanked the page and this was probably why or that the author themselves wanted to remove it (as if a personal page). Either way, this is no form a Wikipedia and encyclopedia page. Pinging editors Winner 42, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Calamondin12 and Nick Number. SwisterTwister talk 01:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per WP:GNG and WP:TNT. No sources exist to establish notability and there isn't any usage content here. Wish I remembered to PROD back in 2010. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a topic made up one day. Esquivalience ^t 02:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this has ever existed. The subject has changed over the years (early versions [42] featured "David Washington" as the protagonist), which is never a good sign. It might not strictly qualify as a WP:HOAX - the article never asserts this was ever printed in the first place - but it's a WP:MADEUP, in-universe article that isn't encyclopedic. Calamondin12 (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nick Number (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's probably someone's fan fiction. Regardless of what it actually is, it's not notable. There are virtually no hits for this search term, which would be extremely odd for a legitimate Marvel property. Even the most obscure superhero teams have extensive fan pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone has mistaken Wikipedia for a fan fiction site. JIP | Talk 16:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This could start qualifying as a snow delete. SwisterTwister talk 18:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. If no opposing opinions arise by tomorrow morning I'm tempted to just close this as "snow delete" and delete the article myself. JIP | Talk 19:26, 6 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. Deletion is not cleanup. If other admin action is needed to keep the article in good shape, please let me know. Courcelles (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wyangala[edit]

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

WP:TNT. Article was good at some undeterminable point (it had several hundred edits in its first week or so, all by the article creator/main contributor). Just to give an idea of the subject, this is a village of 227 people. There are four or five times more edits to the article than the population of the place. Anyhow, I found this due to an SPI. It appears that the article creator (who GA-nommed the article) and the account who passed it (User:JSWho) are likely to be related. From his contribs, JSWho commented on an AfD of a company owned by one "F. Valzano" and passed the GA on this article for his second edit, then disappeared until the AfD.

Because of the suspicious nom, I sent the article to GA reassessment. At that time, my due diligence found that a portion of the history section failed verification to any of the sources listed for it (which were in the article prior to the GA nom). As a matter of fact this diff when the article was a week or so old has the right source for the information, but that only verifies a small piece. It also took me a half-hour of stepping through diffs to find said information, and there are hundreds of edits prior to this diff where other factual info changed. Given the inappropriate GA nom, the lack of interest in a community reassessment to avoid delisting, and the sheer amount of time it's going to take to source existing prose as opposed to using the sources (some of the older of which other users cleaned out two weeks after the GA passed as not meeting RS), I would like the article nuked. MSJapan (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the article's talk page and/or RfC is more appropriate than AfD for rewrites. Esquivalience ^t 02:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esquivalience, I believe their intention (based on our IRC conversation) is that the page should be nuked and rewritten from scratch because it's fundamentally un-fixable. Primefac (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that somehow not made clear? MSJapan (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Wipe it clean, wipe it all clean.' (that is, 'delete'). DS (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:WP:TNT appears to be a view not a guideline. Deleting something might be appropriate if the information is considered to created in bad faith and to be wrong to a significant degree. In this case the town exists and there is no reason to believe that the creator does not believe all the info to be correct, even though it is poorly sourced and is disproportionate in some sense. It is fairly harmless and it does not appear to me to favour any substantial commercial interest, rather it is the work of a local enthusiast. I'm not sure why we need to discourage these efforts so much. Certainly if it was nuked it would never be recreated in any substantial form.--Grahame (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I actually am going to recreate it, but it's easier to work from scratch from the sources than to try to figure out what's right and what isn't - there are too many minor edits in too short a time to ascertain what's correct and what isn't. As I noted, it took me a half hour to binary search down just one source change, and there's a lot more that simply doesn't match with what's there, so I'm basically hamstrung by the prose at this point. MSJapan (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need to delete an article to rewrite it. Draft up the new text 'from scratch' in a sandbox from the supplied sources, then replace the old text with the new as a standard edit (with clear edit summaries and possibly an explanation on the talk page). -- saberwyn 01:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's definitely a verified population center. [43] There is nothing about this place to exclude it from WP:GEOLAND. You see that the article is a mess? So fix it. Reduce it to a stub. Deletion is not cleanup. --Oakshade (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't see why it should be deleted. If it needs a re-write, that is what it needs. That is not a valid reason for deletion. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could certainly do with a tidy up, but there's no reason to delete it: the village is obviously notable Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's currently an on-going discussion at User:Doc James/Paid editing#7. Delete articles by paid editors following the Orangemoody case whereby the hundreds of articles created were deleted and some re-created. The use of WP:TNT is being widely talked about as being needed as a deletion rationale to respond to paid-editing that intentionally abuses the system. If large scale rings like this suffer only blocks but their work remains in place, then these professional attempts at getting around the system will easily find ways to hop IPs meanwhile their "product" is still delivered or salvageable. TNT right now may be an uncommon deletion rationale because the issue isn't notable versus not notable. The problem isn't necessarily WP:SURMOUNTABLE because the problem doesn't lie with the content but rather the creators/writers. These policies have never factored in what the community needs to do to shut down mass paid editing abuses. Mkdw^talk 04:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This would make sense if this were a paid editing case, but this has nothing to do with paid editing so I'm not sure what your point is. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "fundamentally fixable". I came here because of the mention in User:Doc James/Paid editing#7. Delete articles by paid editors, but I disagree there is a similarity to Orangemoody. This looks more like we have a goodfaith editor who like many newbies may not have yet grasped all our policies, demonstrating NPOV and verifiability by improving the article would be a good thing, deleting or stubbing it rather less so. No onjection to TNT being used where we have an article written by someone caught adding falsehood or editing for pay, I just don't see either of those justifications even alleged re this article. Ϣere SpielChequers 07:15, 7 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 a hoax. Number 5 7 17:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Cup[edit]

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

I originally tagged this for speedy deletion as WP:CSD#A1 (no context), as there is no indication what this "Friendly Cup" is supposed to be. There is no indication of a "Friendly Cup" played at a level of competition that would involve these teams. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as obvious hoax. As an additional information, Friendly Cup 2 has just been created a few minutes ago. I speedied that article and gave the user in question a warning to refrain from such creations in the future. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as obvious hoax. I've tagged it as such and will let another admin decide. Giant Snowman 17:22, 3 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) 17:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Gladrow[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY. Note: Some web sources show him as being signed to FC Energie Cottbus, a fully-professional-league team. But soccerway.com, which is already on the article page, clarifies that he had "0 appearances" and "0 minutes played" for that team. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no professional appearances Spiderone 17:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. MYS 77 ^✉ 19:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to SV Babelsberg 03 Any coverage that appears in a WP:BEFORE search appears to be routine coverage of matches and does not discuss the subject in depth. Mkdw ^talk 04:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Given how clear the consensus is, an admin should be able to come in and quickly resolve this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would endorse WP:SNOW as well, but unlike, say, a borderline-BLP-issue or suspected-copyvio page, there is no hurry, so I won't complain if an admin waits the full 7*24 hours, 0 minutes, and 0 seconds before closing this. However, unless something changes soon, he shouldn't wait much longer. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:20, 7 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) 15:18, 8 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.

[column-1] Shilo, Ronen (2 March 2012). "A CEO Speaks Our About Speaking Out". Fast Company. Retrieved 31 July 2015.

[Burgers-2] McMahan, Ty (July 7, 2014). "Burgers and Acquisitions: Lunch in NYC Leads to a Deal in Israel". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July 14, 2014.

[FT-3] Lisa Damast and Jessica McHugh (June 6, 2012). "Israeli VC struggles continue despite M&A increase". Financial Times. Retrieved March 13, 2013. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[Quittner-4] Jeremy Quittner (January 1, 2013). "The "Real Valuation" Is About Having Fun". Inc. Magazine. Retrieved March 13, 2013. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[5] Rosenberg, David (29 September 2012). "Four Reasons Not to Hate Israel's Big Business Tycoons". Haaretz. Retrieved 23 August 2015.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]