Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 April	15 April >

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 Keep as frankly I would've commented but this seems convincing to close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Maloney[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence to substantiate article being written. Have ran a search and most websites are self created by the artist. Barely any articles on the act published by third parties. Epic Tracks (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just from a simple Google search (using the helpful "find sources" links in this AfD), I had no trouble finding reliable, independent articles that significantly covered the subject. I added four and removed some non-encyclopedic content while I was at it. True, the article still needs work, but what's currently in the article satisfies GNG.

Turning to the notability guideline for music-related topics, the subject meets MUSICBIO criterion 1 as a subject that "[h]as been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself": at minimum, the Huffington Post blog and Boston Globe pieces meet that description.

Finally, I think it's beyond dispute that the subject meets MUSICBIO criterion 5 as having "released two or more albums on . . . one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." (She's released three albums on Signature Sounds Recordings, which was founded more than twenty years ago and, according to our article, has more than a dozen associated artists with solid articles.) Per MUSICBIO, that alone is likely to satisfy notability. Rebb ing 05:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG. Significant coverage in the following newspapers: The Boston Globe [1], The Berkshire Eagle [2], The Republican [3], The News Eagle (a small newspaper in Hawley, Pennsylvania) [4], a short article in SF Weekly [5], and brief and peculiar coverage in The New York Times [6]. Also coverage in the following online magazines: Consequence of Sound [7], Elmore Magazine (an album review) [8], and short but flattering coverage in Spin [9]. Dontreader (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided here are unequivocally about her and are from reliable and verifiable sources. I fail to see the issue here. Alansohn (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets WP:GNG criteria. Hmlarson (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Absolutely sufficient comprehensive coverage to meet WP:GNG. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mortadha Al-Breh[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - for failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Al-Harbi's Soccerway page confirms zero appearances; Al-Breh doesn't even have a profile. Giant Snowman 07:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per Giant Snowman Seasider91 (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as above. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Lorenzo Garcia[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, hasn't acted in several significant roles nor made any significant contribution or following. Prod was contested by TonyTheTiger. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article clearly suggests he's simply not yet notable, nothing convincing for any and all applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggested an AFD rather than a PROD because of the number of articles that come up in the news search. I just wanted this to get a full consideration.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor actor, not yet notable. Electoralist (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (criterion 1). Rebb ing 05:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

TopCoder[edit]

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

Dubious notability. Two of three existing references are self-published blog/forum posts. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. I spoke too soon. Lots of good refs to be found.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Westside (mixtape)[edit]

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

A free download mixtape without any coverage in reliable sources. Not even close to meeting any notability requirements. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. ( another non-notable music article by MrWriter245) — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS (I also concur with the small text above). Azealia911 _talk 19:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Baumann (baseball)[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:GNG or WP:BASEBALL. John from Idegon (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep uh... he's on the Padres roster. Alex (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge as per below Does not appear to have ever played in a ML game, and thus does not meet Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Baseball. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to San Diego Padres minor league players. We have an article (or redirected section on a "minor league players" page) for everyone on a 40-man roster. As he has a major league contract, there is a greater chance of him making an MLB debut, and meeting WP:BASE/N, than many of Alex's article creations. However, it's still more likely that it won't happen. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"it;s still more likely that it won't happen." Yeah, isn't that what you guys said about Matt Buschmann, Ryan Lollis, Nevin Ashley, among many others ... yes, it is. Alex (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Figures you'd try to turn yourself into Nostradamus based on a measly few making the majors. The one's you have created that haven't reached the majors have far outnumbered the ones that have.--Yankees10 23:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I wouldn't count up your "wins" so quickly, considering all of your "losses". – Muboshgu (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As nominator, I would have no objection to the proposed merge. John from Idegon (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Muboshgu.--Yankees10 23:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... He played for the US National Team in the Pan American Games, which is a notable international tournament that past precidence has taken as sufficient to satisfy NSPORTS. Spanneraol (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- He did? Why does the article not make mention of this? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It has the medal chart.. no idea why it doesnt mention it in the text but yes he did.[10]. Spanneraol (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Spanneraol. Rlendog (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of the new evidence of Pan American Games medal. That alone makes him notable. Smartyllama (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Spanneraol finding the Pan American Games thing changes this. John from Idegon (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is to delete as not meeting the notability criteria. As Alex did not elaborate further, IAR is insufficient to override the notability criteria in this case. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brady (baseball)[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:GNG or WP:BASEBALL. John from Idegon (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per WP:IGNOREALLRULES, this article has true research value in a non-esoteric topic (baseball). Alex (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate? Rlendog (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per John from Idegon.--Yankees10 23:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing anything notable here. Willing to reconsider pending Alex's response to my query about his "true research value." While I agree with Alex on the George Nell discussion, I don't see anything particularly compelling here. Not everyone who ever played minor league baseball is notable. Rlendog (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Player was involved in a trade involving several notable major leaguers. Does this make him notable himself? I'm not sure. But that could be what Alex was talking about. Withholding vote until he says something. Smartyllama (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Paternity Test[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable enough. — Music1201 ^talk 21:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. I did a proper BEFORE before voting, and I found nothing I could include. Rebb ing 22:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added links to associated publications, links to awards won, and creative notability of hosts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wschwenck (talk • contribs) 04:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Non notable test. –Davey2010^Talk 23:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a listing in the Government of India official census qualifies under GEOLAND --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dhani Kumharan, Taranagar[edit]

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

The subject place has no significance and none of the claims mentioned about the place are sourced. No notability MahenSingha (Talk) 20:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:GEOLAND, populated, legally recognized places like villages are usually presumed notable. The village clearly exists. The article needs cleanup and more sources, but arguably not deletion. /wiae /tlk 23:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a populated and legally recognised place. AusLondonder (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Each and every village in India is certainly listed on the census reports but this does not make the village specific or notable. Can we have article for every village? then what is "notability" and in case of places what are the parameters to decide it? Please go through WP:GEOLAND once again, the very first statement of it says that census tracts are usually not considered notable. It also says that Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. -MahenSingha (Talk) 06:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognized place ([11], [12]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GEOLAND; the Indian census says it exists the nominator thinks otherwise. I'll go with the source rather than the opinion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Griggs[edit]

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

PROD removed without any reason. No legit third party sources in the article, only stat pages and his UCLA bio. Yet LA Times has no significant coverage of him (just this, which mentions him by name but doesn't give significant coverage). The only significant coverage I found is this which is not enough. Fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Muboshgu.--Yankees10 20:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Searches came up with nothing notably better. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:IGNOREALLRULES, article has true research value as this individual is still an active player. Alex (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How would keeping this article in spite of GNG improve Wikipedia? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What "research value" does this subject have beyond any other players of similar (lack of) accomplishment? Rlendog (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a really poorly written article Alex.. you are getting really sloppy. Griggs is not a top prospect, he has little notability. I followed him when he was at UCLA and am aware of him, but he was not covered in the local papers. He missed a couple of years with an injury and is just now working his way back... but he has not gotten any coverage from prospect sources or papers. Alex, you are a good editor when you want to be.. how bout spending your time improving existing articles rather than randomly creating articles on mediocre minor leaguers? Spanneraol (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No games played in the majors, no evidence otherwise of WP:GNG notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passing WP:NCOLLATH as an all american college baseball player.--TM 14:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think a 3rd team all american awarded by an organization not recognized by the NCAA is quite what WP:NCOLLATH intended. Rlendog (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't even think First Team All-Americans are what's meant by that. I tried to argue that a FTAA should be considered NCOLLATH back in 2012, and got shot down. I take it to mean Golden Spikes Award, Dick Howser Trophy, Johnny Bench Award, Brooks Wallace Award, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - NCOLLATH cites awards like those prominent in college football. All-American is one of them.--TM 19:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - This thread from 2015 suggests including First Team All-Americans in NCOLLATH. According to the article, Griggs was a Third Team All-American. This and this discussion shot the idea down entirely. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zariah Avana[edit]

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

This person doesn't exist. The person uses pictures of another person and her entire album is a plagiarism of Charice. The articles written about her were written by the person themselves. Yaydestiny (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2016 (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/2016 April 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per hoax. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of managed DNS providers[edit]

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

This is a pure violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY - this article can have no existence without listing specific companies, and we are not the Yellow Pages. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a reasonable list-class article, per WP:SAL, with every entry linking to a Wikipedia article. The fact that it is a list of companies does not automatically make this the yellow pages. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, there is no contact information like telephone numbers. Nor is it a sales catalog--there are nor prices or service terms. It would be nice if there were a direct parent article for managed DNS, but the mentioned articles on DNS, Failover, Dynamic IP addresses, SMTP Authentication, and GeoDNS are reasonable substitutes in its stead. The article could be improved with a more substantial lead and better referencing, but these are matters of editing, not deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mark viking, but I'd prefer no references on the list page, they can be all added to the wiki-linked pages. Matter of taste, there are too many almost dead lists full of red links, inline external links, or spammy external links disguised as references. –Be..anyone 💩 23:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be nice if there was an article at managed DNS, even better if nominators would learn the difference between managed DNS and DNS before nominating. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mark viking: This list has a clear, encyclopedic selection criteria, all of its entries have articles, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY doesn't forbid this type of listing. For examples of similar lists, see List of desktop publishing software or the much more useful Comparison of desktop publishing software. Rebb ing 05:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Surendranath[edit]

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

Non-notable - only reference is to his IMDB page. The article on the one film he has made is currently up for afd. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Dear all, as I'm new to this wiki, I'm trying to figure out and edit the page, as this film page is genuine. I will share some of the links related to this short film. Please give me some days time fill related references. Ref: [[13]][[14]] AndrewWTaylor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwgroups (talk • contribs) 18:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:BIO. The article tells us he is "best known for his work in Malayalam cinema. He started as an IT professional and upcoming filmmaker. He made his first short film Thiruvalayannur Bhattathiri". If he was "best known for" his film work, one would think he'd be sourcable, but "upcoming" is the clue that he has not yet arrived. His "first short film" has similar issues. If or when he ever reaches inclusion standards, he might be reconsidered. The article's author should study WP:NF and WP:BIO and WP:RS. Perhaps beginning with a visit to WP:PRIMER with a stop-off at WP:COI. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If not (though in all likelihood - sent off playing against Vietnam aged 9, eh?) a G3, essentially a G11 of a footballer whose genuine achievements fall short of WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandi Sahman[edit]

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

Identical to the version of this article that was deleted via PROD. Still an auobiography where most of the content of the article cannot be verified. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Please can we also salt this, as all the evidence is they'll just create it again. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails all criteria. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Clearly not notable Qed237 (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At first look I thought this page had been PRODded in error, but I was satisfied by the comments on its sources at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Sandi_Sahman that it should be deleted. Its creator SamarrahSC87 (talk · contribs) has not engaged in any discussion on talk pages. – Fayenatic London 18:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as non notable autobiography. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, likely hoax and definitely not notable. Giant Snowman 20:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as per above. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 01:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , salt and consider sanctions for SamarrahSC87 (talk · contribs). Obvious self promotion is obvious. Large portion of page copied from self-authored vanity site. International caps not verifiable (and, as per evidence on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Sandi_Sahman, not possible). Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete and salt. Has already been deleted by PROD, possibly eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G3 as hoax due to "blatant and obvious misinformation" as discussed at WT:FOOTY. C 679 10:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete No valid references (facebook & YouTube are not valid) and no apparent notability. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thiruvalayannur Bhattathiri[edit]

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

No indication of notability for this unreleased 8 minute movie. Fails WP:MOVIE. Safiel (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:MOVIE. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced; no evidence of notability. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have also submited the article on the director of this film to afd. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Dear all, as I'm new to this wiki, I'm trying to figure out and edit the page, as this film page is genuine. I will share some of the links related to this short film. Please give me some days time fill related references. Ref: [[15]][[16]] AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Pinging: SanAnMan (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC) HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Safiel (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC) - Hwgroups (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches came up with nothing. A Youtube and Facebook account do not count as reliable sources, it has to be an Independent Third Party ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking:

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

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

& WP:INDAFD : Thiruvalayannur Bhattathiri Ashish Surendranath Shyiju Thirucheeran Vipish TP

Delete for failing WP:NFF through lack of coverage. Short films have plenty of difficulties, but if or when this ever reaches inclusion standards (however unlikely), it might be reconsidered. The article's author should study WP:NF and WP:BIO and WP:RS. Perhaps beginning with a visit to WP:PRIMER with a stop-off at WP:COI. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jono Carroll[edit]

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

Boxer who does not yet meet WP:NBOX. Routine sports coverage is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2016 (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/2016 April 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he does not pass WP:NBOX Seasider91 (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX and passing mentions of results and of fights on undercards are not enough to convince me WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 It is perfectly obvious that all of the "keep" !votes have been posted by the same editor. That being so consensus is clear. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hideyoshi Kamitani[edit]

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

Non-notable pro wrestler. Fails WP:GNG since the only source is a link to his promotion. No significant coverage and nothing to show he meets WP:ENTERTAINER which, according to WP:NSPORT is what pro wrestling falls under.Mdtemp (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it should be keeped beacause he is part of the BJW roster and in the feature he could win a major champion.

User:Puron123 17:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it should be keeped beacause he is the BJW tag team champion with Ryota Hama and this article is served to complete the history of puroresu and the BJW roster in my opinion.

User:Ploritohall 22:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC) — Ploritohall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

17:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep - it should be keeped beacause it is to complete the BJW roster and he did and started a great carrer in BJW.

User:Heartslover.dia.pos 23:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC) — Heartslover.dia.pos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - it should be keeped beacause it is part of the tournament champion carnival and currently he is a champion.

User:Pos.dia 00:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC) — Pos.dia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note - Here another new user named Puron123 votes "Keep" in another AfD featuring an article created by Borutohall, but accidentally signs it with "User:Pos.dia", pretty much confirming that all of these keep votes from new accounts are from the same person. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 16:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it should be keeped beacause he is the BJW tag team champion and every wrestler should have their article on wikipedia because this article is a contribution.

User:Dragonlover18 22:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonlove18 (talk • contribs) — Dragonlove18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Not notable and the actual article content was copied from the Puroresu Spirit website so I deleted it as a Copyright violation. MPJ-US 08:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 02:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails GNG, suspected sockpuppetry. GAB^Hello! 21:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject fails relevant guidelines due to lack of significant coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 It is obvious that all of the "keep" !votes, with the exception of the final one, have been added by the same editor. Consensus is therefore clear. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naoya Nomura[edit]

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

Japanese wrestler with no significant independent coverage or indication of notability as a wrestler or entertainer.Mdtemp (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it should be keeped beacause he is part of the AJPW roster and in the feature he could win a major champion.

User:Puron123 17:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it should be keeped beacause he is part of a stable evolution and he won an award.

User:Pos.dia 00:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pod.dia (talk • contribs) — Pod.dia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note - Here another new user named Puron123 votes "Keep" in another AfD featuring an article created by Borutohall, but accidentally signs it with "User:Pos.dia", pretty much confirming that all of these keep votes from new accounts are from the same person. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 16:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it should be keeped beacause it complete's the Ajpw roster and its just a matter of time until he wins a title or a tournament.

User:Dragonlover18 23:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonlove18 (talk • contribs) — Dragonlover18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - it should be keeped beacause its just a matter of time until he wins a title and he was elected 2014 Rookie of the year at 3rd place

User:Heartslover.dia.pos 23:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonlove18 (talk • contribs) — Heartslover.dia.pos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 02:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would make things easier if the good folks at WP:WRESTLING could hammer out some guidelines for notability. In the absence of that, I note that the subject has recently joined one of the Japanese wrestling stables and that every other member of that stable (including former members) have their own articles. Those other articles are in much better shape than this one, but we can hope that this one will improve over time. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of those other members are established wrestlers who have won top championships, like the AJPW Triple Crown or AJPW World Junior Heavyweight Championship. Nomura is a relative newcomer with no such accomplishments. Aoki, Sato, Doering, Suwama, Hayashi and Kondo are all big stars with lots of coverage on them. Even Nakanoue (an article created by a Martimc123 sockpuppet, something that the creator of this article is also suspected of being) has four more years than Nomura in the business and the UWA World Trios Championship under his belt. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 14:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the follow-up. I recognize that there is a plausible argument for deletion. In particular, I recognize that one could argue that Nomura does not "inherit" notability from his stable. But there is an equally plausible argument in the other direction -- many (most?) of the sports projects have guidelines that say, in effect, if you've played in even one game at the major-league level, you're presumed to be notable. So, I'm seeing two plausible arguments that point us in opposite directions. And without a compelling reason to delete, I opted for "keep". Also, after reading your comment, I went and checked the roster article for the AJPW. I found that most of the wrestlers listed on the roster do have their own articles. Of course, that doesn't refute your argument, but it does bolster my position a little bit. One final note -- regardless of our being on opposite sides of this debate, I think we can agree that the debate would probably have been unnecessary if the folks at WP:WRESTLING set forth some criteria for determining notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom... nothing to indicate nobility. Bgwhite (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Already deleted at 17:36 on 15 April 2016 by Sergecross73 (talk · contribs) (A7 and G3) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simón Jiménez[edit]

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

Possible hoax or mistranslation. The single vague source is explained by the article creator as being "a local tourist guide leaflet that I bought" which they translated themselves with only a "basic" grasp of Spanish. After a short talk page discussion the editor announced that they'd "had enough" and left, saying that I should "do with it what you will".

I can't find any obvious evidence of a "famed Colombian bandit" of this name, and he has no article in the Spanish-language Wikipedia project. McGeddon (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax and searches came up blank. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Article improved since nomination. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Library book vandalism[edit]

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

Article doesn't say anything other than it is a bad crime. Voortle (talk)

Redirect to Vandalism. No need for a specific article. Smartyllama (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep Looking through the library literature, there seems to be a substantial body of research about how to abate "intentional book damage" within libraries, Sadads (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see these improvement I made -- dozens more sources where those came from, Sadads (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is separate from Library theft.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Possible~~ keep (and maybe move to something likeintentional library book damage. Everything Sadads wrote, plus there have been spates of books defaced by using broad-tip markers to spew ethnic hate slurs on the pages, and other problems. Still this is basically a variety of vandalism. Although in general I like to judge a topic independently of the article as it stands, in this case I would ask WP:HEY that someone expand the article not just with references, but with serious, formal discussions of the problem, preferably sourced to peer-reviewed journals. (flag me and I will revisit) Otherwise, ~~Merge~~ to Vandalism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep due to User:Megalibrarygirl's upgrade.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm a librarian and I can say with certainty that this topics should have its own article. There are different strategies for dealing with vandalism and mutilation of books in libraries due to the nature and scope of library work that are significantly different from "regular vandalism." In addition, reasons for library vandalism are often different from "regular vandalism." This type of vandalism is international in scope and has been going on for as long as there have been libraries. Thank you Sadads for improving the article. I've built on Sadads' work and expanded the article into 3 sections so far. I can improve it significantly further, as I've only scraped the tip of the iceberg on this topic. I may add more to this throughout the day as time permits. I'm pinging E.M.Gregory to take another look. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, being a notable subject, article reflects this with plenty of references, thanks to Megalibrarygirl. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The consensus is to keep the article, following Coolabahapple's research. I note the comment from the original author, however as the article's main issues have been resolved, I see that the consensus remains to keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Flynn Siler[edit]

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

A paid for article which fails to demonstrate the authors notability, I can find no mention of her in the New York Times Best seller lists, and being a finalist for two awards is not sufficient to pass WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a paid article isn't a reason to delete it, however the lack of significant coverage is. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOUR. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G7 As the author has asked for the deletion of their articel on their talk page here: [17] RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not her article, many other editors have contributed too, better to let the afd run it's course. Theroadislong (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a quick gsearch for reviews of the two books in the article brings up plenty of reviews ie. from nytimes washington post latimes library journal and more, so probably meets WP:NAUTHOR, did nom and deleters do any WP:BEFORE? Coolabahapple (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and house of mondavi received a gold Axiom Book award - [18]. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not remotely clear how she meets WP:NAUTHOR and the Axiom Book award is barely notable judging by it's article, but happy to be persuaded. Theroadislong (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAUTHOR - "3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Both her books are "well-known" here are some reviews on The House of Mondavi: [19], Wine Spectator - "The book's author, Julia Flynn Siler, a writer for the Wall Street Journal, tackles this complicated story from a business perspective. Certainly she has done her homework. The book is well-researched, with more than 250 interviews, including all of the important players, with an honest effort to represent the many different perspectives. It's fluid and well-written, with insight and rare details that weave together the family's frayed relationships and poor business decisions."; [20], Vinography - "Siler took a long leave of absence to work on this book, and her research is simply outstanding. She captures the scope of Mondavi's story, which amounts to King Lear in wine country."; [21], SF Gate(San Francisco Chronicle) - "SOUR GRAPES / Napa Valley abuzz over tell-all book about how Mondavi family lost empire"; [22], The New York Times - "The sweeping story of the Mondavis’ ascent has been told many times, but never in as clear and detailed a fashion as in a compelling new book, “The House of Mondavi: The Rise and Fall of an American Wine Dynasty” (Gotham Books, $28), by Julia Flynn Siler, who writes for The Wall Street Journal from northern California.".

Reviews on Lost Kingdom: [23], New York Times - "The flip side of that story — how it all looked to the native Hawaiians — is much darker. Julia Flynn Siler’s new book, “Lost Kingdom: Hawaii’s Last Queen, the Sugar Kings, and America’s First Imperial Adventure,” recounts that tale using more than 275 sources, including contemporaneous Hawaiian newspapers and the letters and diaries of Lili’uokalani, the last Hawaiian monarch. ... From the outset, Siler faces certain credibility issues: she is nonnative and nonlocal. She is also working with a language — Hawaiian — that is highly nuanced, often making accurate translations difficult to come by. Yet her book is richly and diversely sourced, and she’s able to color in many figures who had heretofore existed largely in outline or black and white. ... “Lost Kingdom” is not as gripping as it could have been, given the palace intrigue and double dealing it describes. But it is a solidly researched account of an important chapter in our national history, one that most Americans don’t know but should. It will probably provoke missionary descendants and native Hawaiians alike, which is praise in itself."; [24], Washington Post - "In Julia Flynn Siler’s new book, “Lost Kingdom,” we get a close look at how foreigners from Germany, Britain and the United States jockeyed for influence and schemed to take over the government during Hawaii’s last few decades of independence. Siler’s experience as a reporter for the Wall Street Journal serves her well as she depicts the figures who brought down the islands’ monarchy."; [25], LA Times - "Queen Lili'uokalani is the focus but not the sole subject of "Lost Kingdom," journalist Julia Flynn Siler's well-researched, nicely contextualized history of events leading to the U.S. annexation of Hawaii in 1898. ... Siler is balanced, if hardly impartial, in chronicling the tense two years leading to that moment and the subsequent maneuvering that ended with annexation in 1898. She dispassionately records the belief of members of Thurston's Annexation Club "that Hawai'i's tumultuous politics hurt business … annexation would lead to stability and prosperity.""; [26], Publishers Weekly - "Wall Street Journal contributing writer Siler (The House of Mondavi: The Rise and Fall of an American Wine Dynasty) skillfully weaves the tangled threads of this story into a satisfying tapestry about the late 19th-century death of a small nation at the hands of United States imperialists and businessmen ... Siler’s history would have benefited from an interpretive thread, but it makes up in sympathetic detail what it lacks in stimulating ideas."; [27], SF Gate(San Francisco Chronicle) - "This imperious slice of American history hasn't exactly been hiding under a rock for the past 125 years, but Siler, a Wall Street Journal reporter based in San Francisco, retells it with agitating freshness. ... Though Siler will coax out a cultural, personal or geopolitical context for most every event that comes onstage, it is with the greater setting, the diorama, where she excels. Throughout the story, Siler, the author of "The House of Mondavi" (2008), fashions a sense of intimacy in mood and atmosphere." (As more than two reviews for each book i suppose we should also have separate articles for each of them?

)ps. these took a 15min gsearch to find, entering them here took a lot longer:))Coolabahapple (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Coolabahapple: multiple works, each with multiple substantive reviews from major media (including The New York Times), means the author is notable. I note the creator's deletion request, mentioned above, but I also note that no reasons were given, and I hold hope that the development of a neutrally worded article will answer whatever concerns led to the request. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG; consistent significant coverage through feature-length articles in multiple major independent news outlets (as demonstrated by a Google Search and Coolabahapple's thorough citations above). —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Coolabahapple. Ya sh ! 18:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to thank everyone for their comments and time here. I have no idea if I am commenting the right way here, so I apologize if I am messing anyone up.. I would like to request that this article either be deleted, or for help in editing it as it has been butchered, and flagged to high-heaven by one, very zealous user. I am very new to this process--is there a way to move things more quickly? Thank you!! MelissBelle (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I resolved or removed (with explanation in my summaries) all the outstanding tags and citation requests. However, please remember that, even for articles you started, there's no deadline. Rebb ing 04:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi MelissBelle. AfDs such as this are generally allowed to run 7 days (168 hours) to give enough people a chance to comment. Eventually an administrator will come by and read all that is written and determine if a consensus has been reached. Please understand that the result will not determined by a simple vote count because it is the quality, not the quantity of the arguments that matters. If the reviewing administrator feels that more time for discussion is needed, then they may decide to relist the discussion. If the administrator feels that no consensus will ever be achieved no matter how long this is discussed, then they may decide no consensus. As for there being no deadlines, there is no time limit placed upon improving the article so you can keep doing that even while this discussion is ongoing, In fact, any addition sources you are able to find may even help those discussing the article here to reach a consensus. Finally, please try and remember that these discussion are not intended to be taken personally. The purpose of AfD is to simply decide whether an article belongs on Wikipedia. Discussions do sometimes get a little heated because the answer to that question is not always so clear. However, comments such as as it has been butchered, and flagged to high-heaven by one, very zealous user are |not really conducive to the discussion process, so it's best to try and refrain from making personal comments (even indirect ones) about other editors and keep focused on the matter being discussed. The reality is that articles can be edited by anyone in the world with Internet access which means they may morph it to something different over time. So, it's best to assume good faith unless it's an obvious case of vandalism as defined by Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the research put together by Coolabahapple appears to demonstrate that the subject meets NAUTHOR point 4(c). Rebb ing 04:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of singing actors and actresses in Indian cinema[edit]

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

Article does not have ANY sources, tag placed in '07 TJH2018 talk 03:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:STANDALONE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is a style of list we don't have anywhere else on Wikipedia. There is no "List of singing actors and actresses in American cinema", for example. Also, as stated above, WP:NOCITE applies. Amccann421 (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see what criterion of WP:STANDALONE the article fails. Uanfala (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reason there's no similar list for American cinema is that the practice of playback singing isn't really there. This list groups actors according to a criterion that, in the context of Indian cinema, is significant and encyclopedic. This means that the only relevant points of WP:NOTDIRECTORY (1 and 6) don't really apply here. The lack of sources is an issue but the information in the article is neither harmful nor particularly doubtful so WP:NOCITE ~~can't be a reason for deleting.~~ Where was I looking, it turns out it can, in principle. Uanfala (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enthusiastic keep! Need more Bollywood coverage. This rocks. Lack of something similar elsewhere is no reason for deletion. We need to respect differences in culture and interests globally.VanEman (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 01:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while one of the above arguments is valid for keeping List of Indian playback singers, that isn't what's being discussed here. Indeed, that argument would beg that such an uncited list as this be deleted immediately. Uncited material can be deleted, and this article is totally without references.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added references to an (almost random) selection of four list entries. Uanfala (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The relative unusualness of actors who sing for themselves in Bollywood films is notable. Various sources can be identified that confirm this as a notable topic, and thus appropriate for a list article: [28][29][30][31] --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:G5. —DoRD (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Eastman (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable filmmaker who does not fulfill WP:GNG (insufficient sources). IMDB is notoriously unreliable, and much of what remains in the article appears to be either copied or closely paraphrased from the FFC link. GAB^Hello! 00:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user. Please see this SPI case. Mike V • Talk 17:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Guardian Ref. Filmmaker/actor </ref>http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/yournewsandviews/11835639.Suffolk_film_Maker_Paul_Easter_brings_his_film_Sequel_to_Epping_Forest_/</ref> OOOO999123 (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock of EstasTONNEE, the article's creator: [32]. GAB^Hello! 22:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Title/film data http://www.findanyfilm.com/stagger~47623#watch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 911Checkmate777 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

striking out blocked sock puppet. LibStar (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. EDP Press release http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/suffolk_filmmaker_brings_to_life_the_legend_of_the_hound_from_hell_in_zero_budget_black_shuck_film_1_4411301 Snakeeyes12 (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Snakeeyes12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. More reviews retrieved it clearly states above anyone can add details here. http://horrornews.net/52468/film-review-u-mugs-2012/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasHart444 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Titles listed at Mubi https://mubi.com/cast/paul-t-t-easter Tre-cee1981 (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One note from Found Footage Critic does not notability make. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's not anything at least for minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMDB and Found Footage Critic aren't acceptable sources for showing notability. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, not notable. Good references unavailable. VanEman (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly doesn't meet filmmaking criteria, and searches did not turn up enough to show that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He seems to be better known as "Paul T. T. Easter". I found this review of one of his films. Even with the Eastern Daily Press article above, I don't think it's enough to establish notability. All we've really got are database entries, press releases, one review, and a story in what looks like his hometown newspaper. It's still too soon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete why was this even relisted when the keep !voters are all single purpose editors. Clearly fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this could even be G5'd now, as they are all SEFPRODUCTIONS socks. GAB^Hello! 17:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. LibStar (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Two of the "keep" requests are first edits by their authors, and the other "keep" request is made by the author of the article. No "keep" edit gives a convincing reason, while the majority "delete" !votes give cogent rationales. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yaw Ansong Sr.[edit]

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

Facebook wannabe that he founded is still in beta. Not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is rude to call his christian network a dating site. This shows that you didn't even visit the website. Go read more about it first then please revert your comment. I don't see any reason why this should be deleted. Give the chap a break! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mraaa4u (talk • contribs) 16:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Mraaa4u's first edit on Wikipedia. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources are about website, or (Pulse source) his brother. IT News source quotes him, but it's about the website, and it has a strong press release smell to it. I'mot finding other sources of relevance. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is wrong with some of you moderators these days. Even articles like Kweku Baako Jnr's page are allowed to be on wikipedia how much more this? Deleting this would be Ridiculous! Simon T8W (talk) Simon T8W
Keep I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. The websites are quoting him. What else do u want? — Dinah34gh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:02, 14 April 2016‎ (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 15:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 15:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Simon, although your vote should be heard, you should note that you are the creator of this article. Also, the website is In Beta, so a case of WP:TOOSOON. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. I couldn't find any secondary reliable sources that cover this person in-depth, and the sources listed in the article that appear to meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines (here and here) only make brief mention of Yaw Ansong Sr. This source interviews Yaw Ansong Jr. and looks to provide some in-depth coverage about him, but makes almost no mention of Yaw Ansong Sr. (the article subject). Hence I believe that this article subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as very clearly failing GNG. Rebb ing 06:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I am surprised that such an ephemeral article manages to have as many as seven footnotes. Possibly redirect to the article on the network. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Victories Church, Somwarpet[edit]

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

Non-notable church. A local parish church in India, no different from so many other local parish churches throughout the world. I would have nominated this for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11 (the article is highly promotional), but so many users have had their hands in it that I thought it no longer an uncontroversial deletion. So AFD instead. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. No sources online to back this article up. Almost no media coverage. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 14:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously non-notable. It's basically just some random church with no demonstrated claim of notability. Smartyllama (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Now has two inline citations and several categories, but no proof of notability.--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly promotional, I tried tagging for speedy deletion again but the speedy deletion template has been removed. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge After copyediting and other improvements, this article is much better now, and should be kept or merged into Somwarpet.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Dthomsen8: I'm not seeing that much improvement. The grammar is better, but the notability is still lacking. The two sources listed are both mere directory listings and do not constitute significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the editing, this church is still not notable per WP:ORG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. vanity page for non-notable person Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Murphy (actor)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable actor. Searching for sources results almost entirely in hits for a deceased jazz musician of the same name, while apart from an IMDb page, the only source I could find for this specific person is a casting call website. Note that the director mentioned in the article, Jannicke Mikkelsen, does not have a Wikipedia article and does not appear to be notable either, and that the article was created ~~possibly either~~ by Murphy himself ~~or someone involved with him~~. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Dunn[edit]

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

Not yet notable, fails WP:NHOCKEY Ho-ju-96 (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2016 (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/2016 April 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 15:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 15:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 15:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 15:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada -related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 15:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: "Vince Dunn is an offensive defenceman who currently plays for the Niagara IceDogs of the Ontario Hockey League." That is the sum total of this "article," the creation of a SPA for whom this was the only Wikipedia edit. While the subject has played well in the amateur junior ranks and may go on to a pro career, meeting either the GNG or NHOCKEY he does not. Truth be told, this doesn't need an AfD, it needs a speedy under A7 for failure to assert a claim of notability. Ravenswing 17:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close – article has already been speedy deleted —SMALL JIM 12:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aptron solution private limited[edit]

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

wrong spelling Gaurav sahay2 (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:07, 14 April 2016 (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/2016 April 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close The "nominated article" is a red link. There is nothing to vote on. Seasider91 (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 15:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sleek Kitchens[edit]

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

Deceptively well-sourced article. On closer examination, all references are either to the company's own website or press releases. There's one award ("Reader's Digest Trusted Brand awards in 2015 based on customer reviews in the Modular Kitchens category"), which appear to be very minor and not notable. Does not meet WP:CORP, hence: Delete. (Note: the related article Asian Paints may merit a second look, too). Randykitty (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete agreed, searches came up with little to no information. Doesn't meet WP:CORP. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I created this page as I felt that people could benefit from the information being posted. I used whatever references I could find and tried to ensure that the content does not read like an advertisement. If possible, can you please give me some details on what I can improve upon when I create pages such as these? Thanks! Sportonion555 —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed awards section from the page so that the content is not promotional as per wikipedia guidelines. Additionally, added categories to this page. Additionally, regarding the point, "independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability," I have added mainstream media articles from newspapers such as 'The Hindu' to back the content on the page. It's a kind request to please consider this appeal to not delete this page. Sportonion555 —Preceding undated comment added 06:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: in fact, you didn't add any source after the article was nominated for deletion. Please note that the article is not being nominated for being promotional, but for not meeting our inclusion guidelines. --Randykitty (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modified the reference links as per Randykitty's suggestion. Please have a look at the reference sources present at this point. Do these sources meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines? Sportonion555 —Preceding undated comment added 12:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sportonion555: Small note: Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~), not three. Thanks! Rebb ing 18:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all actually suggesting the necessary solid signs of a solidly improvable article. Delete for now at best and wait for better coverage, SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipixel[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I have only found this one source from ZDNet that provides significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – A related deletion discussion is occurring here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete considering there are no compelling signs of solid notability or anything to suggest better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swiftly, Inc[edit]

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

trivial reviews; no substantial references; promotional article DGG ( talk ) 08:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As searches found nothing. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I myself patrolled this at NPP with plans to nominate since none of this suggests better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 14:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any substantial coverage. Even the techcrunch source's independence is unclear, since it uses the same images as the article. At the bare minimum it is too soon. If it had a huge user base and a following, then we'd have something to talk about. -- RM 22:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:G7. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine Basketball Association team owners[edit]

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

List provides no indication of why it is meaningful or useful or notable. Existence does not equal notability. List also contains no references, but even if it did, this still would not by itself justify the inclusion of the list on Wikipedia. KDS4444^Talk 08:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the article for CSD (db-author). If the list is not allowed, well, just speedy delete it. -WayKurat (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discounting one "keep" comment added without any explanation. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Preston City Wrestling Tag Team Championship[edit]

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

None of the references given here are independent of the subject. Subject does not appear to meet the notability criteria for a sporting event. Failing the appearance of reliable, independent, non-trivial sources, I propose it be deleted. KDS4444^Talk 08:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the References.

Delete There is no signficant independent coverage of these events or title. The only sources are from the promotion and from cagematch.net which just gives the results. This could be merged or redirected into the promotion's article. The other events mentioned at Preston City Wrestling (Preston City Wrestling Heavyweight Championship and Preston City Wrestling Cruiserweight Championship) also have no coverage except for a listing of results at cagematch.Mdtemp (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages due to the above reasoning:Peter Rehse (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable local event Seasider91 (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the promotion has a wiki page then its titles should have wiki pages that's just common sense, im fine with the pages being deleted if the promotions page is deleted as well. This way we can avoid situations like this in the future. Actually ive found a website with all PCW event results on it, https://wrestleropesuk.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/results-from-preston-city-wrestling-pcw_uk-no-retreat-no-surrender-night-two-new-champion/

Not really. No comment on the value of the main page but there is nothing wrong with including the championship information there. Subpages need to stand on their own right.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so then should the title history just be put on the main page then?? I don't mind moving everything across its not a massive hassle. Also if another page has the title history on the main page I would like I link just to see what other people have done.

I would wait to see how this AfD goes before doing that but yes. That would only serve to strengthen the main page anyway which is not that big.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.141.13 (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is still questionable for solid notability for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In principle, we have five delete votes and three keep votes, one of them poorly motivated, and the last votes are delete, so that I could have closed it as delete. However, the discussion goes not even on whether the subject is covered in reliable sources - everybody agrees he is, but on whether depth of coverage and quality of sources is sufficient (there are three high profile national media, WSJ, Washington Post, and Forbes). That is a pretty typical AfD discussion, and both sides have good arguments, so I am closing this as no consensus and we can return to this discussion in a couple of years.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Freeman[edit]

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

I have serious concern about this meeting GNG. The subject is a hacker/computer scientist, and a candidate for minor political office. Here are things we can consider: he has been involved in hacking Google Glass, which generated some coverage, in which he was often cited, ex [33], he also got some coverage for a piece of software called Cydia ex [34]. He is now running for a minor political office which generated some local news [35]. Except for the recent, regional political news, the coverage is not about him, but he is mentioned in passing as the hacker who did some interesting stuff. Only the recent coverage is about him, and it seems to be based on combination on Wikipedia article (there's likely some citogenesis here...) and likely personal websites. I do not believe any of the coverage, however, suffices for GNG: either it's in passing or it's too regional/trivial to merit entry in encyclopedia. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. This is a three time speedy deleted article. Subject coverage is fairly trivial and he is not the focus of any of sources. For example, the ibtimes interview isn't about Freeman; it's about various other topics he gives his opinion on. He seems great at getting media attention, but the depth of coverage is very minor and not in depth. I don't think this meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is my friend, which gives me a COI of a kind, but I believe there's substantial enough coverage to qualify for notability. First, it's helpful to note that his main work, Cydia, is notable, and many of the articles about Cydia include more-than-passing coverage about him and his work. These include articles in tech industry publications and major newspapers such as:

Adhikari, Richard (March 20, 2008). "Android, Schmandroid: Linux on the iPhone". Linux Insider. Retrieved July 19, 2015.
Kane, Yukari Iwatani (December 14, 2009). "App Watch: Exploiting the iPhone Lock Screen". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 9, 2015.
Ian Shapira (April 6, 2011). "Once the hobby of tech geeks, iPhone jailbreaking now a lucrative industry". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 2, 2011.

There are two articles in a mainstream publication that focus on him and his Google Glass work:

Greenberg, Andy (April 26, 2013). "Google Glass Has Already Been Hacked By Jailbreakers". Forbes. Retrieved October 8, 2014.
Greenberg, Andy (April 30, 2013). "Developer Warns Of Google Glass Security Risks Following His Jailbreak Exploit". Forbes. Retrieved October 8, 2014.

There are also articles in regional newspapers that focus on him with substantial coverage, such as:

Lindberg, Kenny (April 3, 2016). "Freeman prepared to lead as 3rd District supervisor". Santa Maria Times. Retrieved April 14, 2016.
Brugger, Kelsey (April 7, 2016). "Supervisorial Candidate Blasts I.V. Safe Program". Santa Barbara Independent. Retrieved April 14, 2016.
Ortiz, Josh (February 11, 2016). "District Supervisor Candidates Share Platforms". The Daily Nexus. Retrieved April 14, 2016.

Dreamyshade (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've linked these and some additional potential sources, including New York Times and Wired articles and a new Santa Barbara Independent article with substantial coverage, at Talk:Jay Freeman#Additional references that could be useful. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he has gotten in depth coverage.

Keller, Mike (Mar 7, 2012). "One on One With Jay 'Saurik' Freeman, Creator of Cydia for Jailbroken iPhones". PC World. Retrieved 15 April 2016.
Holly, Russell (Oct 15, 2013). "Geek.com interview: Jailbreak hero Jay Freeman (you know, Saurik)". Geek.com. Retrieved 15 April 2016.
Kar, Ian (February 7, 2013). "Exclusive Interview With Cydia Creator Jay Freeman: 'Saurik' Talks iOS 6 Evasi0n Jailbreak And An Open OS". International Business Times. Retrieved 15 April 2016. --GRuban (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from the citation to the article he wrote (which doesn't cover him at all), everything here is news reports about his latest activities: they're primary sources. I see nothing in this article of news-type documents that discuss his past activities in detail, rather than his current-at-time-of-publication activities. Before you go pushing a fringe POV that news reports are secondary sources, go take a History 101 undergraduate intro course and try telling your professor that news reports about a person's latest activities are secondary sources about him. Nyttend (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a higher standard than policies and guidelines require for evaluations of sources for notability. WP:GNG says "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; most of the cited and listed sources with significant coverage aren't "works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it" - they're published by authors who are working for publications and not affiliated with Freeman. Looking at WP:ANALYSIS as policy on how to categorize sources, most of these sources (other than the Q&A/interview-style articles) provide the author's synthesis of primary information about the subject, which a normal type of secondary source. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, go take a college-level history course and see what happens when you tell your professor that news reports about current events are secondary sources. Really basic discussion of this subject. More scholarly discussion. Secondary sources are those produced in chronological isolation from the event in question, according to basic historical theory. WP:FRINGE firmly states that we must not give equal weight to fringe theories, including fringe historical theory such as the concept that publications from the time of an event are secondary. Finally, WP:ANALYSIS puts the same thing a different way, at least one step removed from an event. These publications are concurrent, they're part of it, and not removed at all. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I think newspapers are accepted as reliable sources per WP:RS, they are indeed not ideal. My main problem here is that the few that do focus on him are more local then regional, definitions to vary but the point is that coverage in outlets limited to smaller cities or university campuses (Santa Barbara Independent, Daily Nexus) does not suggest the subject is encyclopedic (in other words, I think the problem is not the reliability of sources but the notability of the subject). The closest policy I can find is this: Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#cite_note-note6-8. "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." I don't think that cited sources satisfy this; through of course we can debate the semantics of whether two or three minor, local newspapers are "significant press coverage" and/or "multiple news feature articles". I say they are not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The politician guideline is a helpful reference (thanks!) but tricky in this case since his main notability is for his software/business efforts (especially Cydia). A lot of the press coverage about this work has significant material about him, enough that no original research is necessary to build a meaningful Wikipedia article (as guided by WP:GNG). Dreamyshade (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I suppose you don't understand what Cydia is, and I think that him being the developer of that software is enough to make him notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. 14.203.74.157 (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTINHERITED, dear anon. Whether Cydia is important or not, this doesn't mean its developer is important (nor not), not unless there are sources which, for example, discuss his role in the development of Cydia. If the entire Cydia community knows he is important, but nobody in it has bothered to write this common knowledge up for laymen so that it could be used as a reference - sorry, it does not count for Wikipedia. Also, see WP:ITSIMPORTANT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for another week for better attention. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is still questionable for the necessary solid independent notability, something that is not confidently being insinuated. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still doesn't seem to be any consensus. Relisting for more participation. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 09:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 09:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I don't believe the sources provided above meet the threshold of either subject emphasis (about the article subject specifically, rather than passing mention or discussion of projects that have independent notability) or importance (no NYT-like profile or similar caliber.) With neither of these conditions met I don't think it meets WP:GNG requirements.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after twice re-listing and extensive debate. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame Fighting Irish football series records[edit]

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

As argued in three similar, successful AfDs earlier this year—Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa Hawkeyes football series records, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona Wildcats football series records, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Longhorns football series records—this list details statistics of minor note that have not garnered significant coverage in reliable third-party sources so as to warrant a stand-alone article. Granted, Notre Dame is one of the most storied teams in college football history, but not substantively more than Alabama, Michigan, or Texas, for which similar lists have been deleted by the same rationale. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well researched, well-maintained, and has coverage in reliable third-party sources (see the footnotes on the page). This makes it unlike the Iowa, Texas, Alabama, Michigan, and Arizona pages. Shatterdaymorn (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does this list pass WP:GNG and WP:List or fails WP:NSTATS? Some of the sources such as "winsipedia" are unreliable. Also, the prior discussions had the consensus that these lists should not exist at allUCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 22:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 22:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well researched. Top team. Noteworthy. Keep it.VanEman (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For the record, I voted "Keep" on the first of these AfD's, however, the widespread community consensus was crystal clear to delete this entire class of articles, as evidenced in the links above. If we're going to do that, then, IMHO, we should go ahead and do it, and not create some sort of special "Notre Dame exception" to that existing consensus. Basically, we either need to delete this one or un-delete all of the other ones; and, at this point, I don't really care which one we do, just so long as we're consistent about doing it. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia does distinguish between coverage of elite teams and teams that are not elite WP:NSEASONS. So, even though for most schools series record is not notable, for an elite school this may not be the case. I think that is true here. I thought it was true for Texas, Michigan, and Alabama, but those articles were not well sourced. That being said, Notre Dame's article is well sourced and that shows that it passes general notability. Shatterdaymorn (talk) 2:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia does not "distinguish between coverage of elite teams and teams that are not elite" simply because there is no objective criteria for determining exactly what an "elite" college football team is. Not to mention that the perception of which teams are "elite" or "not elite" can change over time. For example, is Tennessee an "elite" team? If you asked people living in 1998 that question, the answer would be "Yes, absolutely." If you asked people in 2016 the same question, the answer would be "Definitely not." And, what about old-time, historical powers like Georgia Tech and Minnesota? There is simply no objective way of determining which teams are "elite" and which ones aren't. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a reason it cannot be moved to the main Fighting Irish football page? Cake (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Previous consensus is that articles of this type are not encyclopedic, especially when it includes 52 teams that they haven't played. Records against teams as part of a notable rivalry (e.g. Navy–Notre Dame football rivalry) belong in the appropriate article, otherwise we must invoke WP:NSTATS. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 06:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article "contain(s) sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." as WP:STATS requires. That text also has plenty of room for expansion. Hobit (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other articles being deletion can bring light to the discussion, but ultimately the question of notability relies on this particular subject. Clearly we have a well-sourced and highly notable topic that far surpasses WP:GNG and many other notability measures.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak delete While having the highest win percentage in college football is plenty notable enough, and that seems to be the best chance this article has of existing, I don't think this is an apropriate article to portray it. Not to mention I can imagine copycat articles popping up for teams like, say, FIU. And then arguments about why Notre Dame can have a series record article and not FIU. Maybe remove the teams they haven't played and move this to History of Notre Dame Fighting Irish football (an article that hasn't been touched in nearly 3 years, by the way). Lizard (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia does distinguish between coverage of elite teams and teams that are not elite WP:NSEASONS. An article on the series records of FIU would not pass general notability because it is not discussed in independent sources. Notre Dame record, however, has extension coverage in independent sources. Hence, it passes the general notability requirement and should be kept. Shatterdaymorn (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a fundamental problem with this class of article. If the teams don't have a rivalry, then the record of the series is non-notable and likely not even found in reliable sources (i.e. delete info). If the teams do have a rivalry, then the record of the series is notable and found in reliable sources, but this page represents an unnecessary fork from the actual rivalry page which should contain any information about the record of the series. As it is, this article is very crufty, with a long table of statistics on series that very few people carry about, least of all the students at Notre Dame. ~ Rob^Talk 04:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't buy the statement that if the teams don't have a rivalry then the record of the series is non-notable. This isn't a list about any rivalry, it's a list of the records of one team. As for reliable sources, Notre Dame Football records are found all over in reliable sources (45 are listed in the article). And finally, it does not matter if a large or small number of people care about the topic WP:IDONTLIKEIT but what matters is the amount of third party coverage in reliable sources. The question on the table is this: "Is the article subject matter notable?"--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Coverage of a team's record is WP:ROUTINE, though. Everything in reliable sources isn't immediately notable. There are lots of caveats, and ROUTINE is one of them. A few relevant excerpts:
    1. "Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable." It's hard to argue that a sports team playing a game is anything other than run-of-the-mill.
    2. "Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine." (bold added) Specific reference to sports scores being routine. Sports records is obviously analogous.
    3. "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all." In other words, at the rivalry pages or on the season pages. ~ Rob^Talk 06:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Coverage of CFB team's record may be routine, but coverage of Notre Dame's record tends to emphasize its past success in football. Part of that is because it has the highest win percentage of any school and third party coverage emphasizes the school's tradition of success. As I mentioned elsewhere, Wikipedia does distinguish between coverage of elite teams and teams that are not elite WP:NSEASONS. For most schools, all time record is not notable because they are not elite and their records are not discussed in reliable independent sources. Notre Dame, however, is an elite football school and series record is notable given the third party coverage. Shatterdaymorn (talk) 2:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete as still questionable for its own article, likely not enough for its own convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rob.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If consensus is to delete, the table might be usefully incorporated into http://americanfootball.wikia.com/wiki/Notre_Dame_Fighting_Irish (and/or the article transwikied there?). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 06:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am split about this vote because the article is well written and researched but at the same time it seems to fail WP:NSEASONS as nothing exceptional or out of the ordinary happened. If it wasn't for that I would definitely vote keep. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems to me that what is notable here relative to other CFB schools is that Notre Dame has the highest win percentage of any school in CFB. Third party coverage tends to exist for that and because coverage of ND tends to focus on its traditional success in the sport. Shatterdaymorn (talk) 2:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep for now as I intended to comment earlier but this certainly needs better attention now so I will go with Keep for now and wait until later if this article is still of concerns. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So are you striking your earlier vote, or...? Lizard (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment much of the support for keeping his article seems to center around the fact that it is well researched and cited. Sure, it is. But is the subject of the reliable third-party sources really the subject of the article at hand, the "Notre Dame Fighting Irish football series records"? Much of the source material focuses on Notre Dame's record against specific opponents, in the context of a specific game or rivalry. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Exactly, same problem with List of college football head coaches with non-consecutive tenure (an article I still find ridiculous). But back to this article, you could probably find series records for any school against every other school they've played, and throw them into a "Our Lady of the Flying el Chupacabra football series records" or whatever, and say it's "well sourced." Lizard (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This has to be one of the more bizarre AfD debates I have ever witnessed. Above we have: 1.) An editor who had previously voted "Delete" in three previous identical deletion debates (all of them coming within the past six months of this one) suddenly voting "Keep" out of the blue here. 2.) Now, we have an editor voting both "Delete" and "Keep" in the same AfD debate - without striking either vote! Crazy. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That explains why WP:CFB and WP:NFL never make any headway. Lizard (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn.(non-admin closure) Mhhossein (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Weatherholt[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. also wasn't on the Orlando Pride initial roster [36] Joeykai (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not played in a FPL and doesn't appear to meet GNG any other way Seasider91 (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 2016-drafted player on current Orlando Pride roster 1. 2016 National Women's Soccer League season begins tomorrow April 16, 2016. Looks like she signed after the initial 18-player roster unveiled per 1 and 2. Regardless, there are a multitude of articles that could be used to reinforce WP:GNG criteria per a cursory Google search. Article could use expansion with additional references, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: She has made her NWSL debut with Orlando tonight so she passes WP:NFOOTBALL now. Joeykai (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SKCRIT 2d, "an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course", (non-admin closure) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings[edit]

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

The previous AfD had strong support to delete the whole article, and others supporting trimming it down. All efforts to trim this have been reverted, so I'm bring this back to AfD. There is no encyclopedic purpose to publishing the condolances of the leader of East Timor or Botswana for an attack in Europe. Since we can't trim this, delete the whole thing and redirect the page to the perfectly adiquate section on reactions at 2016 Brussels bombings Legacypac (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2016 Brussels bombings. Considering that I copied the quotes to the article on Wikiquote, I don't think we can get away with outright deletion due to attribution of authors. Anyway, the Wikiquote article is almost up to scratch now and contains all of what was in here. Other than that, any prose could be easily merged into the main article from the revision history after redirect. For those arguing that these quotes should be kept as they are useful, why don't you just convert it to prose in the main article and then split it if it becomes too large at a later date? Jolly Ω Janner 06:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close Totally WP:POINTY nom, seeing as the previous discussion was only closed a few days ago. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of us expected to be able to trim the article back after the previous closure. Despite discussion, we came to a dead end and were unable to trim a single quote from the article. I have also completed a transwiki transfer since the previous AfD. So there are many new things to discuss on the table. Jolly Ω Janner 06:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best for an RfC on the talkpage, rather than this AfD. (Personal attack removed) Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Topic duplicates 2016 Brussels bombing AfD is the correct place for this discussion. Experienced editors know to comment on the topic, not other editors. Legacypac (talk) 07:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a long history of disruption, with frivolous ANI cases that you start when you don't get your way. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, warn the nominator per WP:POINT.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A disruptive, pointt nomination. Also an improper attempt to end a dispute through deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2016 Brussels bombings. Keep the info in one place. And most "reactions" are so flimsy that they are hardly notable, not everything what can be sourced is automatically notable. No need to list each and every bodies angry reaction. The Banner talk 09:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Im sorry, but I have to agree with WP:POINT here. It sounds like you are saying "Okay so since my edits to trim down have been reverted, back to AfD this goes" Have you tried an RfC on the talk-page on what to trim down? Have there been discussions held to reach an agreement? Looking at the talk-page I see Talk:Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings#Trimming international reactions please continue the discussion there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - disruptive and POV pushing behaviour concerning this article. Just close it. It has to be kept.BabbaQ (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have started a proposal over at Talk:Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings#Trimming international reactions, feel free to throw out any additional ideas or comments you may have. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really no WP:POINT in re-opening this again days after the close. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. If the first AFD did not come to a consensus, why is there a second one less than a week afterward? If it is really not notable, nominate it in a few months. epicgenius, presented by reddit.com/r/funny (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A little soon, but that's just a technicality. Whenever it stops being too soon, this will still be too many words for something that's already summed up elsewhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NS1 (company)[edit]

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

promotional article for small company. No sources except for routine products announcements and funding. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not finding anything noticeably better and the article has no solidly convincing signs. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quote from article "raised its first round of outside funding in 2015". WP:TOOSOON in my opinion. In any case, there is hardly any reliable third party coverage. Delete as it fails WP:ORGDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I will make updates to make this page more in line with the other managed dns provider. I think it would be good if companies like Dyn and UltraDNS are listed that also NS1 would be listed. --Cstate2002 (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the page in line with other similar pages (Dyn, UltraDNS). Cstate2002 (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just learned this was needed, I work for NS1 so I have a COI Cstate2002 (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. The existence of other pages has absolutely no bearing on the acceptability of this one. John from Idegon (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. After fixing a few references on the article (and removing one), I went and found a few sources that discuss the company (here, here, here, and here). However, these sources are either not secondary, only mention the company as part of the subject that the source was primarily covering, or simply provide routine coverage of the article subject per WP:ORGDEPTH (they consist of product announcements or company finance/funding details). I agree that this can be considered WP:TOOSOON, and this company does not yet meet the guidelines required in order to have its own article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf Teschke[edit]

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

The only sources available are routine newsletters or faculty listings.The positions held are not of particular note. Fails WP:ACADEMIC Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I included him due to the involvement in the Global Digital Mathematics Library, like I did the entry of Patrick Ion a while ago (who seems to have had similar academic positions). I'd like to complete it with Pitman and Bouche (for whom probably more content is to be added; certainly, Pitman should fulfil WP:ACADEMIC, what about Bouche? If GDML and FIZ/zbMATH positions are not sufficient, please delete. (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek has two books for Teschke: http://d-nb.info/gnd/1056007435) User:Sunny98you 20:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between Teschke and Patrick Ion seems to be largely a matter of their relative citation records: looking at Google Scholar, Teschke seems to have an h-index of 1 or 2 while Ion has an h-index of 13, which as a mathematician probably leaves Ion meeting WP:PROF#1. Teschke may have a claim to notability, through his editorial positions on Zentralblatt MATH, under WP:PROF#8 or (along with Ion) more generally under WP:PROF#4 - but both of these claims depend very much on how people read the relevant guidelines, and for the moment I would prefer to leave that to other. PWilkinson (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable and simply not convincing of the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think that for the sort of editorial/digital library things he appears to be primarily engaged in, WP:GNG is a better notability criterion than WP:PROF. Regardless, he does not appear to pass either criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mariano Bainotti[edit]

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

Racing driver that does not meet the WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria. The only source is a database site, which is not considered enough to establish notability per WP:SPORTCRIT. QueenCake (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet any signs of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not sure he's raced in a professional race series yet. Seasider91 (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ackerman (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Only notable role may be as a recurring character on Dallas, but I don't see any sources about that or anything else that he was worked on. Natg 19 (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He does not appear to have had any notable roles, as required for WP:NACTOR. Very much a minor actor. QueenCake (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as my searches are simply finding nothing else better for WP:ENTERTAINER, considering he only had one TV series as his longest work. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 M62 coach bombing. MBisanz ^talk 11:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Ward[edit]

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

Does not appear notable. WP:ONEEVENT. JDDJS (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since nothing suggests anything for better applicable notability, delete for now until a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barney Cam VII: A Red, White and Blue Christmas[edit]

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

Non notable video. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously fails GNG and I'm forecasting a snowstorm for this one. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 05:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no way that this is even remotely notable. Probably could have been Speedily deleted per WP:A7 Mduvekot (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Bass[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, possible WP:COI. Kleuske (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page was created without the {{afd2}} template. Fixed now--I offer no opinion on the nomination itself for the time being. --Finngall ^talk 14:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 International Society for Music Information Retrieval#MIREX. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music Information Retrieval Evaluation eXchange[edit]

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

Notability in doubt. Leyo 12:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I did find this. GAB^Hello! 16:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to International Society for Music Information Retrieval#MIREX, where it is mentioned. I was unable to find independent reliable sources for this periodic event at the ISMIR conference. The source mentioned by GAB is reliable, but not independent; J. Stephen Downie manages MIREX [37]. Basic facts about the event are verifiable, hence I recommend a merge of just the lead and references to conference article itself. --Mark viking (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge also as none of this actually suggests a better independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:NFF. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kammarasambhavam[edit]

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

Film has not begun principal filming. Per WP:NFF, "[f]ilms that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles . . . ." Rebb ing 18:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Kammarasambhavam Kamara Sambhavam Rathish Ambat Dileep Siddarth

Delete The good news is that the topic of this planned film where the two stars will depict octogenarians has plenty of coverage to meet WP:GNG and the srticle is easily expandable and sourcable, but the bad news is that we do not yet have confirmation of it filming, so WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is failed making this one simply TOO SOON. We can allow a ressurrection when we do. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon obviously, no context and simply nothing else basically for a better acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no much notability and its too early to be stand-on as solid article on Wikipedia.--Helper V1 (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:NFF. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karnan (2017 film)[edit]

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

Film has not begun principal filming. Per WP:NFF, "[f]ilms that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles . . . ." Rebb ing 18:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the boiler-plated nomination statement, I agree that this one is simply TOO SOON. We can await commencement of filming. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no context at all and basically too soon because of it, to suggest any solid independent notabiltity yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the film has not yet confirmed and or announced officially its cast, crew, and also the script of the film has not yet completed.--Helper V1 (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why so hurry? It's too soon to create this article, and per WP:NFF. --Charles Turing (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Flam[edit]

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

A PROD said "There is no evidence of notability. The sources either don't mention him or only barely mention him", and that is absolutely true. The PROD was removed by the creator of the article (a single purpose account) without any reason being given.

The references in the article are as follows. (1) A 22 page report, which includes a group photograph of over 20 people, with Flam included in the list of people in the caption to the photograph: there is no other mention of Flam. (2) A 721 page book in which the only mention of Flam is a footnote acknowledging his help in preparing a chapter of the book. (3) A 20 page edition of a journal, in which there is a list of over 200 names of "sponsors" and "volunteers", and Flam's name appears among those 200+ names: that is the only mention of him. (4) & (5) A review of a novel and a "preview" of the same novel with its author, both of which briefly refer to a fictitious character called "Benjamin Flam", who is the Chicago Tribune literary editor. The Wikipedia article states that the real life Flam "served as the inspiration" for the fictitious one, but I can see no source anywhere that connects him in any way to the fictional character: certainly neither of the cited sources mentions him at all. Nor can I find any evidence of any connection, apart from having the same name. (6) A report in a lawyers' journal on one case in which he took part. The report requires subscription to see it, so I can't see its content, but it seems very unlikely that a report on one case in a lawyers' journal can constitute the kind of substantial coverage needed by Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

The first few Google hits for him were his own law firm's web site, his Linkedin page, a wedding announcement (which may or may not be the same Benjamin Flam), his entry on the web site of a business which advertises lawyers, an IMDb page which links to one film, where he merely appears in a list of five people who are given "special thanks" at the end of the cast list, with no further information (it is striking that four of the five have the surname "Flam", which is the same as the surname of one of the writers). None of this is coverage in a reliable independent source. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources serve to establish he is in any way more than just a run-of-the-mill lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've confirmed and agree with the very detailed analysis already presented. -- RM 03:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches came up with the same result as everyone else's - it's not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is perhaps interesting that the article was originally created by an IP editor as an "Articles for Creation" submission, which was declined five times, and then accepted by a single purpose account which has never edited any other page, very probably the perwson who created the page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Kelly (judge)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Looking at "What links here" and the page creation history, seems to be a WP:COI violation as well. -- RM 03:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches noticeably found nothing else better, nothing for at least basic solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia practice has consistently treated the office of state court trial judge as a position that does not convey prima facie notability. Nothing else has been provided here to suggest that the subject has received sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG or another notability criterion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 15:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 15:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons set forth in both !votes above (no need for me to repeat). 23:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sources identified after earlier "delete" edits posted. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Money Boy[edit]

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

Notability. All I can find is YouTube & the like. Not enough. TheLongTone (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing for even minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find even the most basic reliable coverage via a search. QueenCake (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is pretty well known in Germany and Austria. News coverage includes German and Austrian mainstream press and major TV outlets. Consider: Bayerischer Rundfunk, ORF, derStandard.at, Focus. --Laber□^T 20:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for evaluation of sources presented in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Well, after taking a moment to view articles about the subject using the Find sources templates atop this discussion and the one I added above, I found more. The subject meets WP:BASIC and point #1 of WP:MUSICBIO. Sources in addition to those listed above by Laberkiste include those listed below. The German Wikipedia article also has some sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Kronen Zeitung
Vice. (WP:NEWSBLOG)
Vice. (WP:NEWSBLOG)
Vice. (WP:NEWSBLOG)
Vice. (WP:NEWSBLOG)
Musik Express
Express
Vienna Online
Heute
Vienna Online

Keep Laberkiste's and Northamerica1000's German references show sustained RS coverage. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paperfriend (band)[edit]

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

Article about a band whose only discernible claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC is being one of the important powerpop bands in their own county. The sourcing here doesn't demonstrate that they're known anywhere outside their own county, however: there's their own Kickstarter (a primary source that cannot assist notability at all), three blogs (which are not reliable sources) and one citation to the local community newspaper which isn't actually about them but merely contains their name a single time in the caption to a photograph. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to give a band a WP:GNG pass on the basis of the coverage despite having not satisfied NMUSIC. Also, conflict of interest as the creator's username matches one of the band members. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply none of this actually suggests better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The secondary sources appear to be about as reliable as your typical blog. -- RM 03:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Painted In Blood[edit]

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

Article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. Of the four sources here, two are clobbered as primary sources (their album's sales page on iTunes and a concert listing on Ticketfly), and the two that do count as reliable sources are both local to their own hometown (and one of those, further, is a university student newspaper) -- so the volume and quality of sourcing here does not pass WP:GNG in lieu of failing NMUSIC. As always, Wikipedia is not a free PR platform on which any band is automatically entitled to have an article just because they exist. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when their notability and sourceability improve. Bearcat (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply none of this is enough for the applicable notability, delete for now as it's too soon for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly too soon, the sources are few and just not notable enough on their own. -- RM 03:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. There is no consensus below as to whether the sources are sufficient to establish notability for this subject or if they should be considered routine coverage. While the discussion could be relisted again for a fuller consideration of the additional sources proffered by Rwxrwxrwx, given two prior relists and the similarity of those sources to those already discussed I do not feel that another relisting is likely to lead to a clear consensus. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Kaplan[edit]

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

No substantial coverage--just one of a number of examples in general articles. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found some links but nothing outstandingly convincing of a better article. Still questionable overall, SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing remarkable about the said company to warrant notability. Mwenzangu (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep references in article as well as those: [38], [39] grants passing WP:GNG in my opinion. NYT, WSJ and artnews can stand for reliable sources and the Casey Kaplan has enough coverage there, I think. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Arthistorian1977 that it passes WP:GNG. I can also see sufficient coverage out there, and the article is well enough written and not spammy. Edwardx (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to disagree that the mere fact the art shows take place at a particular art gallery make either of them notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I didn't find any specific guidelines for galleries or museums, so I would try to argue basing on WP:ORG. The basic criteria says that organisation is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources, which we do have in this case. Now, my opinion is that the gallery or museum itself is just a mere box made of walls, unless the building it resided in is of some historical or architectural importance. Museums and galleries are know for representing the arts, so if we have significant coverage of exhibitions or events in specific gallery or museum it makes it the subject of an article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have difficulty understanding this comment, at least for museums, which have a major social role, a curated collection, a corporate identity. Being in the permanent collection of a major museum is explicitly one of the established guidelines at WP:CREATIVE. Galleries are normally commercial galleries, whose intention is the exhibition and sale of artworks. They are operated usually by individuals, who use their personal artistic and business judgement in selecting what to exhibit. Depending on the degree of selectivity of their selections, exhibiting in a famous gallery might contribute to notability, but in general does not for most. Anyway, this article is not about the gallery mentioned , but in using the artist's exhibition there to show notability . DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm a non-expert in this area, but I would say this subject just passes the general notability guideline. QueenCake (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sources found for this article are profile pages from non-independent/journalistic sources (artnet, for instance, is a commercial organization for promoting and *selling* art, not a reputable news organization with a history of fact-checking and editorial control - per [40]), lists of galleries in which Casey Kaplan is included only amongst a number of other galleries (WSJ and NYT articles), lists of showings, and notices that showings are happening there for a particular artist. We need secondary sources that discuss the subject comprehensively. Chrisw80 (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These articles show notability:

http://www.timeout.com/newyork/art/casey-kaplan

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-flower-district-the-next-chelsea-1424223982

http://therealdeal.com/2014/07/01/fine-art-gallery-to-shake-up-flower-district/

http://www.flashartonline.com/2015/02/casey-kaplan-on-his-new-location-new-york/

http://observer.com/2014/06/casey-kaplan-is-headed-to-the-flower-district/

— Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CodeFutures[edit]

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

June 3, 2015 AGILDATA TO ADVANCE STREAMING BIG DATA announces at least a name change if not a full reoragnization.
October 22, 2015 AGILDATA IS THE NEW CODEFUTURES! says in part:
- Since the CodeFutures name will no longer be in use, we have shut down the www.codefutures.com website.
- dbShards.com will continue to be used as a product portal for dbShards ongoing.
- www.AgilData.com will be our primary website.
- We have also made some changes to our product roadmap. We will be focusing primarily on the AgilData platform which will include dbShards as part of our mission to develop industry leading data infrastructure solutions. However, Firestorm and MapDB are no longer supported (emphasis added).
As primary sources, they are insufficient as references.

However I suggest primary sources are sufficient for deciding policy questions, such as article deletion since:

The current name unwanted by the owner.
This article is outdated with 2/3 content now obsolete.
Successor organization notoriety possibly insufficient.
All of the above raising Wikipedia inclusion suitability.

– Conrad T. Pino (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to AgilData. The article sites multiple reliable independent sources talking about the subject, establishing notability under WP:GNG. Once notability is established, we don't delete articles because they're now out-of-date, we fix them. Yes, the company has changed its name. No problem. Move the article to the new name and update the content. Problem solved. Msnicki (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actually as none of this suggests solid notability and my searches found nothing outstandingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a stub for nine years with three references counting two ZDnet as one: unclear notability. It would be good enough for a fresh stub, but this is apparently dead. –Be..anyone 💩 03:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Okay, I'm changing my !vote. Others' arguments and another look at the evidence have persuaded me that the topic fails WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Burns Upton[edit]

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

The subject of this article requested that it be deleted via OTRS (VRTS ticket # 2016041010005886). I'm aware of the disruption going on related to this article, but it does seem that Upton does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies, as there is a lack of reliable, independent sources that talk about Upton in depth. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 02:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this simply lists his own information and nothing at all for any applicable notability even basic. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ... and possibly salt give the interesting page history. Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, and neither his appointments nor his roles in the cited cases appear to confer notability. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any indication of notability, and would support deleting on that basis alone. The fact that the subject of the article has requested that it be deleted, while not in and of itself compelling deletion, is the icing on the cake. Delete. TJRC (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QiK Stay[edit]

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

non notable and promotional. The refs are mostly from their own web site, with an additional one used several times from a promotional interview in a newspaper Getting such interviews is the job of a PR agent, but we shouldn't be considering them as showing anything other than the competence of the pr agent. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as another excellent example of AfD material, simply not convincing enough for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple locations and secondary source coverage gives it notability. In veritas (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – See WP:NEXIST. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, although on a weaker than average level. Copy edit the article to address promotional tone. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could those arguing to keep please give a couple of examples of which sources they believe establish notability? When I do a google search, the first page of results brings up:

Their own website
Linkedin
Angel List (a venture-capital site)
The Qik Stay app in the Google Play app store
A Tech Portal press release about a $250k seed round
Twitter
A blurb on Inc42, which describes itself as dedicated to obsessively profiling startups
A perfunctory listing on bloomberg.com
A perfunctory listing on Crunchbase
Seed round press release on vccircle.com

None of these establish notability. They're all either social media, self-published, or routine listings of a trivial ($250K is trivial) seed round funding on sites dedicated to covering such business announcements. This is a tech startup that got seed round funding less than a year ago. Startups like that are a dime a dozen. Come back in a couple of years when there's real coverage. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at this point notability has not been supported by reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation if reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here's some sources. The company meets WP:CORPDEPTH, although on a weak level. If the article is deleted, then that's the way it goes. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Daily News and Analysis
Business Standard
'Indian Retailer

Keep, notability cannot be determined by a google search. Its obvious that pages hosted on popular sites (like social media or AngelList or TechCrunch) with huge international traffic [higher domain authority] will be given preference by Google over news portal catering to only Indian News, with traffic coming from only India [lower domain authority]. And this is the case with other Indian startup pages as well. For example, Oyo Rooms, which is in the same space, has first page google listing of its website, social media and app store links. There is only one notable mention, at the BOTTOM of the page, which is from Forbes, a website with international traffic. It can be said that the page in question (qikstay) is notable on the India level, though not on international level, but is still notable. Hence, should be kept.--Mayank91Anand (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruise Violet (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band lacking non-trivial support. Fails WP:MUSIC. reddogsix (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests any better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some decent coverage found, but pretty local to the band: [41], [42], [43], [44]. --Michig (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - after reviewing the references given by @Michig:. Maharayamui (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FWIW, the apparent Keep votes themselves admit the coverage is only local thus still questionable and I'm sure they themselves would admit there could be better, of which is not currently available it seems so the article is, all in all, still questionable for actually keeping and meaningfully improving. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Above coverage is local and not a sign of enduring notability. If there was even some indication of notability outside Minnesota (for a band that shouldn't be "limited" to Minnesota in its coverage), there wouldn't be an issue. As of now, there's a dearth of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) czar 15:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources, including non-local sources, to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 15:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Citizens Defense League[edit]

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

This organization is not notable. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) : "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Felsic2 (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:ORG You might want to have a look at a few links. This gun lobby group has been around for a few years, and has clout within the gun rights population. 1, 2, 3, 4. You could do a Google search and find them mentioned in any number of gun rights web sites. — Maile (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They get mentioned or quoted a lot. But we needs sources that actually talk about them. Do you see any there? Felsic2 (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[45] That looks like a directory and says it includes 40,000 politicians. It just quotes their mission statement. Felsic2 (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find lots of items in news reports that cover their activity, such as this one: "... as Slate's David Weigel reports, the Arizona Citizens Defense League is preparing legislation that would require the state to offer firearms training to politicians and their staff." and this from the LA Times:"As secretary of the nearly 4,000-member Arizona Citizens Defense League, a gun rights group, Heller carries at least two handguns with him at all times." There are dozens of mentions of their pro-gun lobbying activity in local Arizona press. I haven't found any in-depth coverage of the organization. MB (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also found this coverage of one of their activities:[46] MB (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That link looks like a mistake. As for those mentions above, they seem cursory rather than significant. Felsic2 (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link above has been fixed. Yes, the mentions above are cursory. That's way I didn't say KEEP. MB (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mentions in sources are clearly trivial. No significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I feel like we should have an article on them since the number of hits on Google News implies they have some influence as a lobby/pressure/special-interest group in Arizona state politics. However, until we can find some articles actually discussing them as an organization (e.g. when they were founded, who is behind them, a survey of their lobbying successes and failures over time, etc), as opposed to just endless quotes of their opinion on issue X (where X is most commonly some proposed bill in Arizona state legislature which they support or oppose), I don't think there is enough for an article. SJK (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Lumley[edit]

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

More or less unreferenced for a decade, don't see sources which meet WP:BASIC. Additional sources welcomed, as always. joe decker ^talk 15:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lumley has been in a number of notable bands, including Screeching Weasel — one of the top selling independent pop-punk bands of the 1990s. He has also done some production work at Sonic Iguana. Carrite (talk) 04:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete actually as my searches found nothing noticeably better and the article is still questionable for the needed independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No proof of enduring career (lots of brief appearances, though) so as to meet WP:NMUSIC, and dearth of secondary source content about the subject himself. czar 15:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up the in-depth coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG, and he does not appear to meet WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mayday (Awkward Thought album)[edit]

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

The album fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:Notability. Also, the parent article, Awkward Thought, is very small. Citations verify the existence of this album but do not make the album more notable than it is (or is not). Very little or no professional reviews have been made; Allmusic hasn't reviewed the album yet. This source reviewed the album but is itself not notable. I inserted quotes from Exclaim website into the parent (band) article, so this article becomes less than necessary. George Ho (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the Exclaim review referenced in the article is a reliable source, although I couldn't find much else so its a weak keep unless more RS can be found Atlantic306 (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS. Fails #1 as there is a single, short review I could find (the one linked in article, which probably is valid, but on its own insufficent) and, more importantly, fails "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography.", as there is nothing there apart from basic details and track listing. I would say merge, but the artist article already has most of the info. crh23 (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing actually convincing of its independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Owen McEvoy[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist. Fails WP:GNG with a lack of significant independent coverage--just some passing mentions and results. Fails WP:MANOTE since he hasn't competed at the highest level. His IBJJF medal was as a purple belt and wasn't at a world championship event. He never competed at the ADCC world submission championships, competing at qualifying events doesn't show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to establish sufficent noteability. Legacypac (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this shows any solid signs of the applicable martial arts notability, delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator -- there's no notability here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing the evidence needed to convince me that he meets either WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a rough consensus below that there is insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources to support an article and that the subject cannot successfully claim notability on any other basis. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Akins[edit]

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

Claims of notability are based on being taught by Rickson Gracie and helping train some notable MMA fighters, but notability is not inherited. References are passing mentions based on these relationships. Fails to meet WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the page could definitely use more reliable sources, there are references that detail the subject. Meatsgains (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actually as my searches are actually finding nothing better and the article is still questionable for any better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing the coverage needed to convince me he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Akins meets guidelines as a notable coach and instructor, depending on your view of martial arts. He is even "regarded as one of the best black belts produced by the legendary Gracie" and has developed his own style of JiuJitsu. Perhaps this page should be in the references: http://www.bjjheroes.com/bjj-fighters/henry-akins ~ [Daveswallace] (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The site bjjheroes.com is not considered a reliable source since it is essentially a blog. Developing your own style is not grounds for notability unless you can show that style is notable (see WP:MANOTE#Arts and styles for details about what makes a style notable). Finally, the claim he was "one of the best black belts" is undermined by the fact there is no record at ibjjf.org of him having success at any BJJ tournament. Papaursa (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Inits current form it is a clear advertisement. amd should have been deleted as such even from Draft space. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What Every Science Student Should Know[edit]

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

Does not meet wp:NBOOKS. The book is scheduled to be published a month from now. All but one of the sources are news stories about the fact that these medical students have published a book. Those stories are from Oakland Press, from Oakland County, Michigan (seems to be the home of one of the authors); Yonhap News Agency, of South Korea (one of the authors is Korean. Translated title: ""Stanford Korean-American Medical Student Publishes Book About STEM Majors"). The AMA Wire article is not about the book but is entitled "How four med students landed a major publishing deal" and gives advice on getting published. The only review is from the Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science, which is a student-run, peer-reviewed journal. (Three of the authors are Dartmouth alumni.) actual link here. LaMona (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although it's not published yet the amount of coverage is sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG (barely). Disregarding Yonhap because one of the authors is Korean is like disregarding AP when it reports about Americans - this is no small-town newspaper focusing on village matters. I also disagree with LaMona's interpretation of the other sources; a detailed report on the book's publishing process definitely should be considered coverage of the book. Huon (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no disregarding of the Yonhap - that is what the translated title says. (Actually the Google translate reads: "Korean participation in the Stanford medical student, wrote Science and Technology Primer" but someone has provided a better translation in the references.) The article appears to be about the Korean student who is one of the authors of the book. I say "appears to be" because I am relying on Google translate, but that seems to be the gist of the story. To me, that is about the Korean student more than about the book. As I said, only one of the articles can be considered a review of the book, and that's what I judge book notability on. When I checked, this book did not have a review in either Kirkus, Booklist or Publishers Weekly. I don't know if those are held until the book is published, though. LaMona (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huon is spot on, the book was highlighted by the AP-equivalent of South Korea, which is pretty notable for a book 3 weeks ahead of its publication date [many proofs of the book were sent broadly for review, and authors are being contacted for interviews as a result in addition to the formal book-specific reviews, which are bound to come out in bulk in May]. I've added a few more citations today of where the book has been highlighted/reviewed, and can continue to do so between now and May 6.

This last comment was by User:Azureick5; Andrew H. Zureick is one of the authors of this book. Azureick5, if you are closely associated with the book, then you have a conflict of interest and it may not be appropriate for you to be either editing the article for the book (now that it is no longer in draft space) or commenting here. I will leave the information about COI and how to handle it here on Wikipedia on your talk page. LaMona (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Azureick5 is now User:Science1guy1 (name changed April 16) LaMona (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Science1guy1 has declared a connection to / COI with this article. This has been updated on the article's talk page. I would prefer to have all mentions of my previous username and the connected author name deleted if possible. I will no longer edit this article going forward, but will remain an active contributor to Wikipedia articles, particularly those in the sciences. -Science1guy1 —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would wait until the book is published to wait for any better coverage, delete as the article could be currently convincing but this is best deleted for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, does WP:NOTPROMOTION apply here? Coolabahapple (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly. The reliance on pre-publication publicity is strong. Also, the article originally included the "back flap blurbs" as "reviews" although I removed that as being promotional. diff LaMona (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep. I strongly suspect we have some WP:COI WP:NOTPROMOTION going on here. Prhartcom (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prhartcom, COI and promotion are not criteria for deletion at AfD, although I admit that it is hard not to let them color our thinking. The question here is strictly about notability of the topic of the article. I have focused on NBOOK as the relevant policy. So please state your !vote in terms of either NBOOK or of the policy that you think should apply. Thanks, LaMona (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, because it might still be notable; thanks for the timely and valuable tip, LaMona. In that case, I have checked out the Dartmouth review (it starts on page 40) and it is most definitely a reliable source. I think that it is possibly true that this article was created too early. However, don't delete it; wait a month for the publishing (I have made a note to personally check back later), because I have faith that the article will be expanded with more reliable sources then, making it notable according to criteria 1 of WP:NBOOK. Prhartcom (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the case that in your estimation the article does not meet notability, would you agree with a "Userfy" decision? The article originated in AfC and may have been accepted too soon. "Userfy" would create the time frame needed to pick up additional reviews, and draft space does allow COI editing. LaMona (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out every source and agree with the nominator's assessment of each of them, but I don't see what the harm is keeping this article in article space another two–to–four weeks. It seems odd stick to the rules so much that to demand that it disappear into user space for that short amount of time while understanding that it is going to soon reappear back into its same place. What I'd be more concerned about is the fact that that the primary author of the article is the primary author of the book. I certainly hope someone else writes the article from here on. BTW, those two long quotes in the article need to be rewritten to summarize most of the quote (we don't normally quote passages that long without using Template:Quote). Prhartcom (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prhartcom, you seem to know something about the future -- that there will be sufficient reviews of this book within a few weeks. (Got any good stock market tips? :-)) Personally, I have no idea when the book might become notable. In any case, is there a mechanism for "check back later" that is part of the AfD process? I'm not aware of one, and I don't know what value for "later" is acceptable. How does one administer this? Can AfD's be postponed? LaMona (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book has not been published yet and WP:NOTPROMOTION applies at this stage. However, even if I set that aside, the book may not fulfil WP:BKCRIT. It definitely fails points 2,3,4,5. For point 1, it would need articles in sources (independent of the authors/publisher) which discuss the book itself in detail - and not mention it in the context of an author writing a book. The Yonhap article seems to be independent and reliable, but it doesn't address the book in detail. The Dartmouth alumni magazine article discusses the book, but is connected to the authors. At this stage, it seems WP:TOOSOON to have an article about this book. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Adequate sourcing just does not exist. WP:TOOSOON No prejudice against creating an article if the book receives sufficient reviews, or feature story coverage, or otherwise becomes notable at some future date.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 15:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Almeida[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. As agreed to in many previous AFD discussions, being the champion of a second tier organization does not show notability. Routine sports coverage is not enough to meet GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we cite a Reasons for deletion for this AfD? Is it possible that this article passes WP:GNG, even if it does not meet WP:NMMA? Kevlar (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't meet WP:GNG because all of the coverage is routine sports reporting, mainly about his WSOF 26 fight.Mdtemp (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has more than routine coverage. His Brazilian news sources are more in depth. Passes WP:GNG Jumbotron5000 (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What sources did you find that showed notability? I searched a number of the references in the article that didn't mention the WSOF in the title and still found the coverage was basically routine sports reporting--fight announcements, results, and promotion. Papaursa (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For example: These Rede Globo articles go into detail about his aneurism symptoms and how he was going to be on The Ultimate Fighter Brazil. http://globoesporte.globo.com/am/noticia/2015/12/alexandre-capitao-supera-suspeita-de-aneurisma-e-vira-campeao-no-wsof.html http://sportv.globo.com/site/combate/noticia/2015/10/do-fim-da-carreira-ao-wsof-capitao-supera-suposto-aneurisma-e-mira-titulo.html

Then this Tatame article talks about aspirations (this was when he was projected to fight in the UFC but opted for WSOF). http://www.tatame.com.br/tatame/mais-novo-campeao-do-jungle-alexandre-capitao-ja-sonha-com-o-ufc His international coverage is being discounted and that isn't fair. I encourage you all to brush up on how to treat non-English sources via the policyWP:NOENG. Another great one for Capitao is this. It talks about his wife and daughter which is hardly promotional or routine http://sportv.globo.com/site/combate/noticia/2015/12/do-inferno-ao-ceu-alexandre-capitao-festeja-cinturao-apos-2015-conturbado.html . Also please explain what you mean by "promotional." I don't see any press releases listed as sources. Jumbotron5000 (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good place to start. Globo is a huge Brazilian news outlet and has more than routine coverage. I thought routine to be a passing mention such as a score or result, with little to no accompanying information. https://www.google.com.br/?gws_rd=ssl#q=alexandre+capitao+almeida+site:globo.com

Capitao has good coverage in Gracie Magazine too https://www.google.com.br/?gws_rd=ssl#q=alexandre+capitao+almeida+site:graciemag.com

Here is another giving much, much more than routine coverage. Las Vegas Review-Journal is a huge daily paper with over 170,000 daily copies. http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/mma-ufc/questionable-decision-gives-almeida-wsof-featherweight-title Jumbotron5000 (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NMMA and I don't think that the coverage is significant enough to override that.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the notability criteria for MMA fighters and I don't think WP:GNG is met. Coverage is routine sports reporting, fight results, and articles about suspected health problems that caused him to pull out of the TUF Brazil show. That's WP:BLP1E at best. Papaursa (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as this is still questionable for the necessary improvements, Delete for now until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by MBisanz, apparently as a summary of this discussion--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunwill[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSIC. XXN, 15:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources here or here. Meatsgains (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable musical project. Unreferenced article (since 2005!). XXN, 15:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better local coverage can be found as my searches found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 19:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable and with zero references. Meatsgains (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Out[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There appears to be no coverage whatsoever in secondary sources. Rentier (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject has no coverage in relabel sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing actually suggesting at least independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al-Yousef[edit]

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

While this article technically meets WP:NSPORT since Al-Yousef played three minutes in the Saudi Professional league four years ago, it only just meets WP:NSPORT and comprehensively fails the general notability guideline, meaning if falls under the section in the lede of WP:NSPORT which says that: the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one substitute appearances a number years ago (to technically meet NFOOTY) is not enough when he comprehensively fails GNG. Some COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish and Andrei Nițu, amongst others. Fenix down (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, 3 minutes of professional play is not enough when he fails GNG so comprehensively. Giant Snowman 19:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Fenix down. C 679 10:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one of the requirements of WP:NFOOTY is that the subject must have played in a professional match, and this article has done just that. As Wikipedia states "once attained notability is permanent" and this article meets the sport requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but a single appearance is not in and of itself a guarantee of notability. WP:NSPORT says as much, as I pointed out in the nomination. The guideline is intended a tool to determine at a glance whether or not a footballer is likely to meet the general notability guideline. A first appearance is usually a good indicator that a footballer will have a career that will generate sufficient coverage to do so. However, when the single appearance is the high point of the career, there is almost never sufficient coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY. Proponent ignores many other decisions that went the other way - which often happens for young players like this one who are still active in the sport. He is captain of Al Jeel which while not fully professional, is the second highest level of football in Saudi Arabia. And he appears to meet WP:GNG given his wedding was newsworthy - [47]. Nfitz (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY, and also enough coverage per above to possibly pass WP:GNG as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:FOOTY while if the player had retired or injured it would be different but the player is currently playing in a lower division and has played in March 2016 and is currently active.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Article passes WP:NFOOTY--Michiquito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actually as I would've almost closed this as Keep but this is still actually questionably solid. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of bus routes in London. Sandstein 07:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 251[edit]

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

Another generic bus route, no evidence of notability. Jeni ^(talk) 12:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do other London bus routes have their own article, just out of curiosity/amusement ? But any historical English nobleman below the rank of Baronet is routinely purged as "non-notable".... Ryn78 (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 15:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 15:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable. @Ryn78: There are a few left, admittedly most like this one that fail WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Nordic Dragon 15:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Applying WP:NOTTRAVEL seems appropriate; if we were to accept this across the board we'd have another shitstorm on our hands, no doubt. But this seems to fail the GNG, for instance. And even if this and other routes passed the GNG, that wouldn't necessarily make their schedules notable, with all the stops and the symbols (, ) and whatnot. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are 135 articles like this in Category:Bus routes in London, not to mention a few hundred other city bus routes using Template:Infobox bus line. This isn't the first one. Most have references such as this did before much of the content was removed. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Were those references independent? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of bus routes in London as Jeni attempted to do before having to waste everyone's time and drag this to AfD. Nothing about this route is notable. It exists. Period. Article sat unsourced for years. When Jeni attempted to change it into a redirect, an IP added some references, none of which were independent, which only showed that this route exists, not that it was notable. Nothing in searches to show that this route passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notable bus route - There's thousands of bus routes and not every single one (even in London) needs an article ...., Fails nottravel & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anis Alamgir[edit]

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

Does not pass the criteria of WP:JOURNALIST. No major contribution in the field, do not have coverage in Google. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all suggesting actual solid independent notability, there's nothing of at least basic notability context. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only independent coverage is too thin to meet the significant coverage requirement of WP:GNG and there is no obvious merge or redirect target. He's one of 25 journalists arrested and beaten in August 2007. That earned him a few brief mentions (the longest less than 75 words), but not enough to build a biography on.[48][49][50] I've suggested to Crtew that these sources might expand the draft User:Crtew/Press intimidation in Bangladesh, so Alamgir might get a few words there. The only other sources I could find were trivial mentions, such as "Anis Alamgir, a Bangladeshi journalist who went to Afghanistan during the war, said...",[51] "The meeting was attended by ...", "... also spoke on the occasion", etc. Worldbruce (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Lindquist[edit]

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

Article on an American radio announcer. I went through it and pruned the unreliable refs and a bunch of uncited material. What is left is basically a resume list of production jobs at radio stations that sounds distincly unremarkable. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 09:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 09:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as most of the refs left are still unreliable, and also because the article doesn't credibly assert it's notability. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 09:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches are simply finding nothing else better and the article contains nothing to suggest keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR by a non-socking user. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mix-Roman[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:GNG Greek Legend (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)~~ blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing yet for solid independent notability, delete until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 19:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riccardo Azzoli[edit]

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

Racing driver that does not meet the WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria. The only sources provided are primary, and there is little significant coverage in reliable media. QueenCake (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches simply found nothing better and this article has no better convincing signs to keep and improve. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matteo Cozzari[edit]

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

Racing driver that does not meet the WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria. The only sources are database sites, which is not considered enough to establish notability per WP:SPORTCRIT. QueenCake (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply none of this actually suggests any independent notability or at least also something to suggest keeping and improving. Delete at best for now, SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Berton[edit]

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

Article with virtually no content, that does not establish why this racing driver meets WP:NMOTORSPORT or the WP:GNG. The only secondary source given is a database site, which is not considered enough to establish notability per WP:SPORTCRIT. QueenCake (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this actually suggests independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facundo Crovo[edit]

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

Racing driver that does not meet the WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria. The only source is a database site, which is not considered enough to establish notability per WP:SPORTCRIT. QueenCake (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing actually suggesting solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly WP:GNG is not met.Mdtemp (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss USA state rankings[edit]

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

unsourced WP:OR The Banner talk 00:14, 7 April 2016 (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/2016 April 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a topic covered in RS or even by the pageant business on their website. Therefore it is not a valid topic. Legacypac (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as conceivably acceptable but simply nothing to actually suggest keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure OR. Wikipedia is not the place for fan-provided info. Prhartcom (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research and unsourced trivia, common failings these pageant rankings tables. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's merely an expansion of a similar table in the Miss USA article. For what it's worth, I don't see much value in the main-article table, either. Identifying which states won the most titles is something that could easily be said in prose. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Capital accumulation. And merge content from history as may be appropriate. Sandstein 07:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Law of accumulation[edit]

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

Duplicates information presented in Capital accumulation. – S. Rich (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as appropriate (if at all) and Redirect to Capital accumulation. It seems like the major point of difference is that this article brings up Smith. @Srich32977: Do you think it would be appropriate to mention Smith in the other article? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Mention of Smith is appropriate per his writing on the topic. – S. Rich (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as mentioned since this may be best connected to him and there's nothing yet suggesting noticeable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This seems to be a case of concepts in two areas having the same name. In this case Capitalism as part of Economics and Business as shown in Template:Capitalism of which Capital accumulation is a part and Capitalism as seen in Marxism as shown in Template:Marxian economics of which Law of accumulation is a part. The Marxist part could be a subpage of Capital accumulation, maybe under a more complete name such as Law of capital accumulation or General law of capital accumulation (a chapter title in Marx). That way it wouldn't dominate the parent article. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stripped (Magic Eight Ball Single)[edit]

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

A single containing a cover version of the song "Stripped" without any independent notability whatsoever. There is a mention in the article of the original version, which seems sufficient. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first release by the band Magic Eight Ball. It was originally released independently in 2009. But the single was re-released on the label Magic Cat Records with physical copies in 2012. It's the first release in a young bands discography and has as much right to stay up as any other single that has its own page on wikipedia.DakotallyAwesome (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not notable in its own right so doesn't deserve its own page like other songs do. The fact that this is a cover of an song that already has an article means at the very least it should be redirected there. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 05:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 05:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 05:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NSONGS including the bit about separate articles for different versions of the same song. This version already noted in the main article (Stripped (song)). --Richhoncho (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this actually suggests solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 14:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Wright[edit]

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

She's been in all of 5 episodes of a TV show, and a school play. Fails WP:NACTOR. WP:TOOSOON Meters (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for solid independent notability including for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't personally believe WP:ENTERTAINER is fair to impose that someone in the entertainment industry has to be in 'multiple' productions (which seems vague as no one really knows how many that is. Taken literally, 1 is a multiple of 0.5). WP:SPORTCRIT would deem a sports person notable if they had participated in just one major event and had multiple secondary sources. If the former had the same basic notability guideline as the latter, Wright would now be automatically deemed notable as she's participated in a major television show and has multiple (actually several doing a quick search) secondary sources to prove it which I will happily add to the article if necessary. Its likely Wright, literally at the beginning of her career, will go on to star in other shows so deleting the article wouldn't be constructive. I would like to go with WP:COMMONSENSE and keep this article. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said WP:TOOSOON. If she continues with her career she will become notable. If she does not continue her career she may never become notable. We don't know. Right now if appears that she does not qualify as notable under the general guideline or under the specific rules for entertainers. It's irrelevant whether you agree with the guidelines or whether other guidelines have a lower standard for notability. Meters (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That last sentence came across very negatively towards me. No one's opinion is irrelevant here please don't be dismissive. If I'm understanding correctly, WP:TOOSOON could be applied if the article had been created before The A Word was broadcast. Now 4 of 6 episodes have been broadcast and Wright is one of the stars of all of the episodes so far and there is apparently significant coverage to verify that, then I believe she passes both WP:TOOSOON and WP:GNG. WP:ENTERTAINER (which we're only 'encouraged' to use) is the only one that contradicts this saying "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", whatever number is meant by 'multiple'; assuming it isn't 1. This is why I'm standing by the general guideline and WP:COMMONSENSE. There also shouldn't be different standards of notability from one profession to the other, Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one significant role, therefore WP:TOOSOON to meet guidelines, which is not uncommon for most young actors. So I say delete first then wait until she has more roles and we'll get this undeleted. Donnie Park (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. WP:TOOSOON Meters –Davey2010^Talk 23:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 08:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Soelkner[edit]

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

Given sources are just album pages and only merely mention Ronald Soelkner and some sources given does not even mention Ronald Soelkner hence not notable and tries to promote Ronald Soelkner. Nicky mathew (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for the applicable independent notability, not currently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems like a promotional article. Is there anything from this guy on the German Wikipedia, as it's obviously written by a German with a bad grasp of English. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC) 7 april 2016[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't Bandcamp editorEهեইдအ😎 00:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comments. — Music1201 ^talk 01:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Tajer[edit]

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

Drako (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though the nominator did not give a reason for deleting the article, this subject is still not very strong as far as notability goes. editorEهեইдအ😎 00:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notablility. — Music1201 ^talk 01:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this obviously has no signs of any applicable notability including WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 (article about a real person making no credible claim of significance). I would CSD it myself, but I'm not sure if that's considered poor form when there's an open AfD. Rebb ing 01:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion and !votes evenly balanced after relist x2. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adhyapaknagar[edit]

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

No clear relevance or reason for an article, especially one which is as poorly written as the one in existence. A major overhaul would be required to turn the existing article into suitable encyclopaedic content. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 15:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a place where people live, then it should be kept as per WP:NPLACE. The content is poor, but one would think there are official documents which would give the bare minimum of information about it as a place. So keep, providing someone can be bothered to WP:TNT. JMWt (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Human settlements are notable if they can be verified. Despite the claim in the article, Census of India has no record of this place for the 2011 census. However, search for Adhyapak Nagar does bring up a post office and coordinates in Google Maps. Not much to work with. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a neighborhood in New Delhi, but not a notable place, and very little information to put in an article. Not in the 2011 census is a strong indicator that it is not a village.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously needs drastic improvement but per WP:NGEO all legally recognised, populated places are presumed to be notable. Google maps apparently lists this neighbourhood as "Adhyapak Nagar" with a space. AusLondonder (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please note I have moved this to Adhyapak Nagar, which probably should have been already been done. I have also begun a cleanup and requested assistance from editors at WP:India AusLondonder (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nangloi Jat. This is not a census town (as earlier claimed in the article), so WP:NGEO does not apply. It's a small neighbourhood in the Nangloi Jat census town. utcursch | talk 20:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like the suggestion to redirect to Nangloi Jat, as we have no sourcing to fill out this article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not only "census towns" are notable. Per WP:NGEO "all legally recognised, populated places are presumed to be notable" AusLondonder (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Completely agree with AusLondonder. The article is notable as per WP:NGEO, but still it require improvement. Being poorly written or improperly formatted doesn't grant deletion of the article from the Wikipedia. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I agree with AusLondoner's assessment of WP:NGEO, not sure why they feel that this particular place meets that requirement. I can find nothing which shows that it is a "legally recognized" place. At best, it appears it might be a neighborhood, but not all neighborhoods are automatically notable, they have to pass WP:GNG, and this one does not appear to. If someone has a link to show that this is a legally recognized place than please ping me. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 00:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like it's notable, though the article needs more work. That's not a reason to delete it though.Bruriyah (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't even have one cite, can't even meet WP:V in any meaningful way, though I believe it does exist.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per User:Utcursch's suggestion above. It's probably a name that's used locally, but the paucity of reliable sources, even if they're mere directory entries, would indicate that this is not a place notable enough to justify a standalone article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect instead perhaps as this certainly is not confidently solid for independent notability but this can be redirected instead. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blue waffle[edit]

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

Silly neologism that briefly made headlines. One airhead does not notability make, no evidence this is in any way remarkable outside this one incident and some online shock types. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The references seem to be mostly bogus -- for example the link to [bluewaffles.org] adds nothing. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poorly-defined fictional entity. The phrase had some minor coverage in a couple of newspapers on account of a New Jersey council woman falling for a prank and mentioning the phrase a meeting. Nothing to indicate that it is a phenomenon that passes WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any evidence that this hoax meets the general notability guideline. Gnome de plume (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Many stupid things are notable, unfortunately. Women are most often the victim of this hoax. Just like Jenkem, this hoax has been around for a number of years, and the subject of coverage in multiple outlets over time, which is why this article has existed without debate for over six years, and currently gets over 2,000 views per day. See [52]; [53]; [54]; [55] (#8); [56]; [57]; [58]; [59] (last question). Certainly the article could be improved, however.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Internet phenomena. Bishonen | talk 20:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet phenomena, per Bishonen, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mainly per Milowent. Meets notability through sustained coverage over several years in reliable sources. The article can be improved, but WP:NOTCENSORED. SSTflyer 05:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about censorship? This is entirely because it's a neologism one dope happened to fall for once, received only minimal coverage then, and hasn't received any at all since. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 00:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although stupid, notable. I don't like it, but we have to keep this one. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milowent TimothyJosephWood 13:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milowent.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Milowent said, this has received significant independent coverage, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not sufficient reason for deletion. Milowent has shown continued coverage outside the one incident, contrary to what nom said.Smartyllama (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale was not IDONTLIKEIT, it's that the coverage in question is 1. extremely minimal and 2. entirely unremarkable. A few mentions here and there across the internet is hardly indicative of lasting notability, even though it's admittedly hilarious that someone would actually fall for it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remember when this was in the news. It still gets a lot of buzz in forums. Mindhunter77 (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why in gods name did I think searching on Google Images was a brilliant idea?, That was horrifying to say the least!, Anyway that aside it's a notable thing and seems to get alot of hits etc, As stupid as it is it is notable and as an encyclopedia we cover everything no matter how stupid (or in this case f'ed up) it is... –Davey2010^Talk 23:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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