Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 August	29 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agrovet Market Animal Health[edit]

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

WP:PROMO article created by a single purpose account Special:Contributions/Umbertocalderon. Significant RS coverage cannot be found to confirm notability. Previous AfD closed as "keep", but did not result in presentation of any new sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and this is honestly G11 material, the Keep in 2009 is exactly what should not happen or be kept now. SwisterTwister talk 00:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete for pete's sake. i just removed "In June 4, 2013, the company granted a United States Patent (no. 8,455,452), for a "Composition and use of a long-acting oral bioadhesive endoparasiticide gel based on doramectin"." and reduced the body of the article by a third. for pete's sake; how weak and promotional can you get? Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the concerns already noted. There aren't any inline sources used in the article currently, with some of this company's own websites and a patent included in the external links section. This company is mentioned on some websites of other companies, but I didn't come across any independent coverage in reliable sources. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:13, 3 September 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 by RHaworth under G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (non-admin closure) Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JSCAPE[edit]

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

Procedural AFD - PROD expired, but it was previously PRODed and deleted. This PROD was "Fails WP:COMPANY". I concur, it does so big time. I reference-checked it at the time and it's got nothing to it, zero RSes (just press releases) and as it stands needs to go. I'm willing to be convinced (if their claims are correct there should be something), but we'll need RSes. David Gerard (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertorial. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 30 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fête (mobile app)[edit]

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

Very promotional tone (I believe it to have been created by an undisclosed paid editor), ill-sourced, little evidence of meeting NCORP, problems in tags not addressed, Google shows very little that passes WP:RS. Recovered from PROD by editor whose challenge was their sole edit. In spite of all this it could be notable, but it would take some evidence, and I look forward to Sonnybynight bringing it - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:TOOSOON. The app is not yet notable per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I quite frankly consider this speedy material. SwisterTwister talk 03:11, 30 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merchants (video game)[edit]

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

Procedural AFD, was killed at PROD two years ago. Apparently promotional article, created as part of Gamelearn cluster (which has largely been cleared up). No evidence of individual notability as a product. Sources exist and back claims, but don't establish much notability. Text WP:PEACOCKy and reads like a press release. David Gerard (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches are not finding better. SwisterTwister talk 03:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; reads like something you would find on the cover of the DVD. I cannot local any better sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources even mention a game called "Merchants", so redirect into Gamelearn, which I believe the article for should be notable. I'm in the process of retrieving the article, which had been deleted by WP:PROD.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Good luck getting it up to notability :-) - David Gerard (talk) 10:43, 31 August 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 16:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ojas[edit]

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

unable to verify Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Failure of WP:GNG. Completely baseless article, no references to verify. Even there isn't a a lead. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is absolutely no evidence of notability for the even in question. Vanamonde (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article used to be only about an ayurvedic principle that seems to be in the same league as agni (Ayurveda) and ama (ayurveda). There is a note about the page's multiple subjects on the talk page that should be of interest. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ayurvedic part - The festival fork seems to fail WP:GNG but many references exist for the ayurvedic principle. A few random google hits:

Ayurveda: A Quick Reference Handbook - Manisha Kshirsagar, ‎Ana Cristina Magno - Page 26

Ayurveda For Dummies - Angela Hope Murray

Modern and Global Ayurveda: Pluralism and Paradigms - Dagmar Wujastyk, ‎Frederick M. Smith - chapter entitled "The Woes of Ojas in the Modern World"

WP:POTENTIAL applies, so does WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. K2709 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails GNG with no real level of notability shown; has WP:OR and WP:fringe issues. Kierzek (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 22:39, 28 August 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. (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 13:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Addis[edit]

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

I am not convinced that the winner of a national teen pageant is default notable for such. I am willing to assume that we can dig up enough information on Miss American and probably Miss USA, but I am not convinced with Miss Teen USA. Doing the actual source hunt on Addis supports my views. In the article we have an IMDb link, but IMDb is not considered a reliable source. We have a link to an autobiographical article by Addis, but the link does not work. Even if it did, she is writing about herself, and that is not secondary or third party. I found online a possibly different additional article by her on her. I also found a picture with caption from the local paper in Muscle Shoals when she won, not even an article, just a picture with caption. Then I found a book that has a bunch of stories about fishing where it mentions she talked to the judges at the pageant about how she likes noodling, which is the act of fishing for catfish with only ones bare hands. The book is entitled Fishing's Greatest Misadventures and mentions Addis for half of one paragraph in a 420 page book, that is not at all scholarly. The passage that mentions Addis is actually lifted (possibly with attribution, I have not read the whole sites, but it word for word the same for multiple paragraphs) from the book oodling for Flatheads: Moonshine, Monster Catfish, and Other Southern Com by Burkhard Bilger published by Simon and Schuster in 2001. This 256 page book mentions Addis in one paragraph on page 21. A 2006 article in the New York Times attributed the number of 2,000 noodlers just in Missouri to a professor who studies the sport. However somehow the 2006 article focused on Misty McFarlin, while admitting 17-year-old girls in the sport are extremely rare, and her father Lee McFarlin. Lee McFarlin was Bilger's high school classmate, and is also the noodler he focused on. My next find is her being mentioned in this interview [1] with Miss Teen Mississippi USA in 2014. None of this seems to be substantial enough to establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep national titleholder, currently away from desktop but can source [2] PageantUpdater (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment she won the national Miss Teen USA title, I do not think this is a title of the level that confers notability. Just because a title claims to be for the whole USA does not make it notable. In almsot all competitions, titles limited to people who are minors are considered to be less notable, and rarely enough to make a person notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 19:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Teen USA per WP:BIO1E and not well known one at that. Nominator's analysis of available sources is compelling and shows that this level win does not lead to notability. The newspaper coverage is all about the win, with no substance as to the subject herself, which illustrates BIO1E well. Cited material can be moved to the Miss Teen USA article.

Note: While searching, I've located the Miss Teen USA 1987 article -- should this perhaps be redirected as well? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The discussion is happening here, and there is no indication that the consensus would be that a Miss Teen USA would be considered notable. Thus I don't believe that suspending this AfD would serve a useful purpose. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect name to Miss Teen USA for 1987. Not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I am not going to present that a "one time wonder" deserves an article going against current policy and advancing a lifelong stub. Otr500 (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This one's national and a major pageant. Also, from the pre-Google era, so it will be tougher to find news coverage, as it would have been in print newspapers. Montanabw^(talk) 18:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The newspapers are searchable with Google's newspaper search, and all the articles that come up are about the event (the subject's win or crowning of the next year's contestant). I don't see anything about Ms Addis herself. This is a WP:BIO1E situation, and deletion or a redirect is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BLP1E says there are three criteria to be met, one of which is "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. ". It cannot be argued that that applies here, therefore you cannot argue to delete under that. PageantUpdater (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I would argue that the event in 1987 Miss Teen USA 1987 was not "significant". The series as a whole may be significant, but not the individual events. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also WP:Articles for deletion/Katie Blair (2nd nomination) and WP:Articles for deletion/Tami Farrell both leaning towards keep at this stage PageantUpdater (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She and her victory seem to be sourced by a whole lot of reliable sources. p b p 13:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I still do not think anyone has shown that these sources overcome the BLP one event guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm struggling to understand why this is in play. One of the three conditions to be met is "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented". The Miss Teen USA pageant is a significant event, thus this does not apply. I agree with Thaddeus' reasoning here PageantUpdater (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going by this when envoking BIO1E:

"When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified."

Hence, Wikipedia maintains article on Miss Utah USA for example, while the winners, with some exceptions, tend to be non-notable individuals, per available sources. The coverage is also generally WP:ROUTINE, on the placing, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: while Miss Teen USA series may be notable; I'd argue that Miss Teen USA 2000 and so on are not well known and significant events; I live in the US, for example, and I've never heard of Miss USA, let alone Miss Teen USA. I was aware of Miss America though; but I did not know that there were several competing systems. I'm a sample of one, obviously, so take that with a grain of salt. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

well they were able to attract 98 Degrees and Westlife to perform. I haven't searched for that so won't give you an estimate off the top of my head but 1987 has hundreds of news articles from all across the US --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep National titleholders in a competition where there are 50 real state competitions are probably notable. --GRuban (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per our standard for a national beauty competition winner being notable. CrispyGlover (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't believe that such presumption exists for Miss Teen USA; contestants are essentially child performers. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above Keep votes.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. WP:V and WP:RS go back to the beginning of time. We can't have an article - especially a biography - about a subject that has not been substantially covered in reliable independent sources; in this case there is no coverage of the subject, only the pageant. That invokes WP:BLP1E. I am concerned that people are misinterpreting a a guideline that says people are likely to be notable if they have won a major pageant, as meaning that are notable. On Wikipedia, notability comes form depth of sourcing, not from box-ticking. And what constitutes a major pageant is contentious: as far as the real world is concerned, only Miss World gets any serious mind share. Miss Teen America is $RANDOMPAGEANT as far as most people are concerned. Bring me sources that are about the subject and go beyond the pageant. Remember, Wikipedia is not a directory, of pageant winners or anything else. Hotties are not inherently notable. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment"hotties are not inherently notable" shows utterly disgusting bias and you clearly haven't read the article because the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 6th articles are specifically coverage of the subject not the pageant. I'm sorry if you don't have a subscription to Newspapers.com but it's otherwise difficult to research a subject whose notability came about 20 years ago. Also evidence you haven't read the article properly - it has nothing to do with Miss Teen America. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Katie Blair and Tami Farrell, Miss Teen USA titleholders from the 2000s, both recently passed AFD with no delete noms, source of their notability being Miss Teen USA in both cases. I don't see why this one should be any different, if anything the news coverage here was more significant. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 09:28, 5 September 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 per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayasree Bhattacharyya[edit]

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

Can't find much evidence of notability. Adam9007 (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still adding information to this article and it is still a work in progress. This is my first article. Still learning. Please do not delete it.Nishael (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete as WP:TOOSOON. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:21, 28 August 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. (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 12:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reynold Xin[edit]

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

There is some claim for notability, but most references are about companies he worked in and products he worked for, not about him. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- not sure, but it appears that there's some walled garden going on with Databricks. I was going to comment as "Redirect" to Databricks, but it appears to be a non-notable company itself, along with its founders. I tagged Databricks for "Notability" and PRODded one of the personnel articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 5 August 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, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Sorry for the format. This is the first entry I added. This guy is perhaps the most influential in the Apache Spark project, which is the largest open source project in big data. He has been cited by a lot of media in the enterprise data space. Just some examples I found via quick Google News:

 * http://sdtimes.com/examining-spark-2-0-reynold-xin/
 * http://www.cio.com/article/3101842/analytics/databricks-unveils-commercial-support-for-apache-spark-2-0.html
 * https://adtmag.com/articles/2016/07/27/spark-2-0.aspx
 * http://siliconangle.com/blog/2016/02/18/a-new-model-of-data-with-streaming-and-spark-sparksummit/
 * https://opensource.com/business/15/4/interview-reynold-xin-apache
 * https://adtmag.com/blogs/dev-watch/2016/05/asf-big-data-projects.aspx
 * https://adtmag.com/articles/2016/05/12/spark-2-0-preview.aspx
 * https://www.datanami.com/2016/06/01/merging-batch-streaming-post-lambda-world/
 * http://www.informationweek.com/big-data/big-data-analytics/apache-spark-20-preview-googles-amazon-echo-rival-big-data-roundup/d/d-id/1325528
 * http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mongodb-enables-advanced-real-time-analytics-on-fast-moving-data-with-new-connector-for-apache-spark-300290985.html
 * http://www.eweek.com/database/mongodb-delivers-connector-for-apache-spark.html
 * https://opensource.com/community/16/2/winners-2016-community-awards
 * http://www.dbta.com/Editorial/News-Flashes/Spark-16-Release-Continues-to-Make-Spark-Easier-to-Use-108351.aspx
 * https://www.datanami.com/2015/05/04/deep-dive-into-databricks-big-speedup-plans-for-apache-spark/

He also had a Google Scholar profile with 1500+ citation count. Should we update the page to reflect these? Xuweixuwei (3:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC))

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd like to see at least a short article, couple paragraphs anyway, in a major daily paper. That, or a full interview or mini-bio in a less notable venue. Not seeing this. There's a mention here in notable Wired... he's quoted, a couple sentences, which is a start, but... WP:GNG wants "significant coverage", defined as that which "addresses the topic directly and in detail"... I'm not seeing that. On the other hand, we are not slaves to WP:GNG, and there're a lot of mini-references which result in a reasonably-detailed, reasonably-well-ref'd article. If pressed I would say the article is maybe worth keeping. Herostratus (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:48, 4 September 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. Consensus seems to lean to the direction that the coverage is not enough for GNG. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Schorr[edit]

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

Utterly nn. Fails GNG. Has a non notable job in academia. Chairs a non notable event. Trivially, it is said she is the inspiration for the song by R.E.M. (Don't Go Back to) Rockville. That is not notability per INHERIT. John from Idegon (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's definitely mentions in books and coverage by local Brandeis University press... Just another example of someone who's interesting and accomplished but doesn't quite meet our basic criteria. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a minor more administator than academic. Nothing about her is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While not notable solely as an administrator, the collection of coverage of that role and the dozens of pubs covering her involvement with the REM folks, inspiring the Rockville tune (coverage spanning over 20 years) and her battle with cancer (Boston Globe) add up to passing WP:GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the answer to the question "what, specifically, is she notable for?" is a bit scattered, I think there's enough depth of coverage here for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This really looks like a WP:BLP1E situation to me. The only credible and well-sourced claim to notability that I can see here comes from her having been the girlfriend of Mike Mills and having inspired the (Don't Go Back To) Rockville song. That information is already adequately covered in the (Don't Go Back To) Rockville article. The cancer story from Boston Globe is not really about her. The story is about cancer patients turning in growing numbers to alternative medicine remedies. She is just one of the subjects they used for the story. I don't think this kind of coverage contributes to notability per WP:GNG. Similarly, if after a natural disaster, such as the current floods in Louisiana, some national newspaper decides to run a story of how that disaster affected the lives of several ordinary people, that kind of coverage would not contribute to their notability, IMO. So at the end of the day this case still looks to be a WP:BLP1E one to me. Nsk92 (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article; music trivia mention as to a REM and their song can be stated in their article. Kierzek (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient sources for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete This is a WP:BIO1E. The sources by Brandeis Univ. Press are not really independent for the purpose of notability. The reason why the subject is notable is because of the song which is adequately covered in another article. Accordingly, delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:56, 4 September 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. Redirect if and when necessary, if required. (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 13:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Whitecaps FC Residency[edit]

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

Youth sports league which fails WP:GNG and WP:BRANCH, almost all youth leagues are non-notable, and "[a]s a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." SanAnMan (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - junior league and no claim to notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - to Vancouver Whitecaps FC dumping a lot of the pointless player lists. Fenix down (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not a youth league, or even a league at all. And it's not a local affiliate of a national organization. It's a development academy. If nominator thinks development academies are not notable, he can say so, but no accurate reason was offered. I agree with Fenix down that redirect is preferable to delete, but I think keep is preferable to both. Smartyllama (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator of this AfD (and several other like it) seems to have mistaken MLS professional development and reserve teams for "youth leagues" -- this and all of the other AfDs from this crop are fundamentally misinformed. Article in its current state lacks references but it's trivially easy to turn up many on Google. A Train^talk 23:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I largely echo the above. This has been nominated for deletion on the grounds that it is a youth league and youth leagues are not notable. The problem is that it is not a youth league, so the nominator's criterion does not apply. The other criterion "individual chapters of national and international organisations are usually not considered notable" also does not apply as this is neither an individual chapter of an organisation - it is a significant element of the organisation itself, and not a chapter in any way - nor is Vancouver Whitecaps a "national or international organisation". The nominator has recommended this for deletion on the grounds that this program is like your local branch of the Scouts, or the Scouts' local Saturday football league, but that is a substantial misunderstanding of that this article is about. Since the nominator's criteria for deletion can be seen to not apply, I'm not sure what case this AfD has to answer. Falastur2 ^Talk 22:25, 5 September 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. Neither of the keep arguments are particularly persuasive. Smartyllama states that this is an academy of a major soccer club, but it's not clear how that make this notable. And ATrain asserts that there is online coverage, but doesn't cite any specific sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New York City FC Academy[edit]

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

Youth sports league which fails WP:GNG and WP:BRANCH, almost all youth leagues are non-notable, and "[a]s a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." SanAnMan (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New York City FC - info can be merged there.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not a youth league or a local affiliate of a national organization. It's an academy of a major soccer club. As neither reason specified in nomination is actually true, I don't know what there is to discuss here.Smartyllama (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Spiderone 12:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator of this AfD (and several other like it) seems to have mistaken MLS professional development and reserve teams for "youth leagues" -- this and all of the other AfDs from this crop are fundamentally misinformed. Current references in the article are, unfortunately, all to 1st party sites but there's absolutely no shortage of coverage of the team and its players online. A Train^talk 23:08, 4 September 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 16:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weston FC[edit]

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

Youth sports league which fails WP:GNG and WP:BRANCH, almost all youth leagues are non-notable, and "[a]s a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." SanAnMan (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete unsourced article for fourth tier club. LibStar (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG Spiderone 08:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nomination is absolutely irrelevant, the club is not a local affiliate of anybody. It's an independent club in a league where every other independent club that has played games so far has its own article. And the NPSL isn't a youth league, anyway. It's semiprofessional. It's recognized by US Soccer, but that's not the same as being a direct youth team of another club. Being affiliated with US Soccer doesn't make it a "local chapter" any more than all the other clubs in the country, which are also affiliated with US Soccer officially. Weston FC itself certainly isn't a youth league since it isn't a league at all. Neither reason specified for nomination is accurate. Smartyllama (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. Nor have you actually demonstrated which notability criterion is met. LibStar (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fourth-tier team. Not a player, but a team. Fourth-tier teams in the American soccer pyramid are notable per consensus. Especially if they're independent teams. And per WP:NFOOTYCLUB, clubs in notable leagues are notable, with the NPSL considered a notable league. Smartyllama (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable per consensus? Well the clear consensus here is not notable. LibStar (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability Prevan (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable club, fails WP:FOOTYN - no evidence the club has participated in a national competition. No indication of wider coverage that would satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:21, 2 September 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 (non-admin closure). —Mythdon 06:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TFC Academy[edit]

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

Youth sports league which fails WP:GNG and WP:BRANCH, almost all youth leagues are non-notable, and "[a]s a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." SanAnMan (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - is this some kind of joke? Since when was a 4th tier league team (not player - but TEAM) not notable? Nfitz (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Major League Soccer team academies can't be considered to be part of a local youth sports league, but I suppose you can't call them a completely professional development team either. It's somewhere in between. Any useful info could be merged into the professional team's page, but I would point out that there are many Wikipedia pages for the academy programs of European teams, which could be considered for deletion as well (unless they're considered more notable although a quick glance shows most of them are about as informative as the pages for the MLS academies). Lhts120 (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - this is not a US 4th tier team (notable), this is a Canadian 3rd tier team (not notable). FYI @Nfitz:. Giant Snowman 08:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, but in the same league as US 4th tier teams that are notable? Or did I miss something there ... Nfitz (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring that issue, I've seen a lot of media coverage over the years about the academy, I didn't attempt to dig any of it out, as I assumed this was such a cut-and-dry case. Do we really have to go down that road? Nfitz (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not a youth league, not a league at all, and not an individual chapter of a national organization. I don't know what nominator's point is. In any case, it satisfies WP:GNG per Nfitz. Smartyllama (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator of this AfD (and several other like it) seems to have mistaken MLS professional development and reserve teams for "youth leagues" -- this and all of the other AfDs from this crop are fundamentally misinformed. A Train^talk 23:11, 4 September 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 lack of evidence of notability, as said here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time Server Magazine[edit]

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

No evidence that it passes WP:NMAG, no sources. Contested PROD. shoy (reactions) 17:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of any notability. --Randykitty (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is perfect and accurate. It is difficult to find sources for such a magazine when it is internally produced by a state agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.64.8 (talk • contribs)

Comment: That's a perfect description of "not notable".... --Randykitty (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I wish I had commented sooner because the 1 Keep vote goes against everything of what Wikipedia actuslly is; their claims alone are not what's saving this article, because, frankly there is nothing for substance here. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this sounds like a wonderful inmate/prison project - at a single prison. But my searched find ZERO notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:03, 31 August 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 16:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of obfuscators for .NET[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Delete As this article lacks an unbiased presentation of the topic and became a battlefield for different companies producing the obfuscation software. The reader may be misled by the article. eg (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC) — Egubenya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The content is not unbiased. Based on research it appears to favor specific offerings and is not an objective discussion of the overall software technology involved. There does not seem to be a way of addressing the objectivity issue without veering into marketing speak. I also think we're better off without it. - Bctwriter —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete I can see the value of this list and feature table to .NET developers. However that's not an encyclopedic value, it's transitory trade-press news reporting. I hope this finds a home, but I don't see that home as being on WP and with the unsourced state of this article, I'm not inclined to be lenient.

This might make a WP article if it was turned upside down. Turn it into an encyclopedic article on obfuscation for .NET, use the quite good explanation sections and then use the comparison table as no more than an illustration. It would need the technical features and aspects of .NET obfuscation to be sourced though. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've been keeping this list in as good a shape as I can, but the total lack of sourcing and the fact that none of the entries have any independent notabilty is making it very difficult. I think we're better off without it. - MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments in the previous AfD. Lists can list non-notable things, as long as the topic in general is notable per WP:CSC. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC) --How is the editorial guidance to be interpreted? WP:CSC suggests that a few non-notable items may be included, not virtually the entire the list as is the case here. "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses."EdBlatt (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't agree that none of the entries have any independent notability, see Dotfuscator for instance. Hancox (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC) — Hancox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . PS it's curious that the person who nominated this page for deletion is the same person who restored some content that was deleted a few days ago for being non-notable.[reply]
Delete This list mixes obfuscation techniques with other unrelated techniques including virtualization, merging, compression, etc. Importantly, there are no references on the page and it has been a free for all of commercial interests with non-validated claims. Gmt767 (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC) — Gmt767 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Upon review, there is enough misinformation here that makes it appear it would be impossible to keep this up-to-date. It has already fallen far behind reality. Deletion is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.79.186.2 (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I know there appears to be a lot written above, but once you discount all the SPAs and transient IPs (on both sides), there's not actually much here. Even the nomination is by a SPA. So, hoping another week will attract some more experienced editors. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete. This listing sorely lacks reference information. Previous incarnations of this list have been appropriately deleted. For example see User:Scatophaga/Comparison of .NET obfuscators. Important note: The article below was not written by me. It was deleted (what a stupid action! This contains relevant information, at leat for me, seeking for something like this for a while) due to the following reasoning "This is an orphan article (So? Just because is "orphan" doesn't mean it's not interesting! Why those guys who delete other's work, are around? Bacause of this, I quit to create Wikipedia articles. I'm tired to see others change what I write, just because they don't understand, or they don't like the "style"), and it is simply a list displaying a grid.

Johngrant (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list does not seems accurate. The feature list of Wikipedia page does not reflect the reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB00:820F:B300:4C5F:4813:4B18:DA59 (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Attempts to present a coherent article have been thwarted by commercial interests. Sadly the page includes many features that do not relate to Obfuscation (software) and almost all assertions are unreferenced (and based on my review, frequently erroneous). EdBlatt (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No links/other support — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.33.73 (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsupported. Not a topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.71.57 (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have seen this page come and go several times already and it is not improving. When the latest version was resurrected it seems its author did not bother to disclose that the prior version was deleted? The descriptors on this page are loosely explained and I started to build in better information. Now I see the article for deletion notation is up again and in considering the sorry state of the article, and in particular its continuing degradation the basic principles of wikipedia should be weighed, and there is no reason to retain this and many good reasons to delete it again. The primary reason I see is that the most all of the entries are not representative of a modern day obfuscator and the definition of the obfuscator is so contorted in the article components that it is potentially confusing to users.WindRest (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional material, non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.38.199 (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:10, 28 August 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samia Shahid[edit]

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

Sourced, but thisis a WP:1E. A routine murder. WP:NOTNEWS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 'honour killing' in Pakistan is a social issue. After the death of Qandeel Baloch it is a second high profile murder in Pakistan. Such killings has compelled the Pakistani government to make a law against honour killings.^[1] Wide Media coverage of Samia killing not only in Pakistan but across the borders proves that it was not A ROUTINE MURDER.Sneha Hurrain (talk) 08:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.dawn.com/news/1272264

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper KalamCStone (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock—UY Scuti ^Talk 19:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article quality is poor, but notability guidelines are not based on that. per sources that I can find this honour killing has received plenty of media coverage. also per bigger context of honour killings. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes of course Wikipedia is not a newspaper but on its front page there is a section 'In the news'. Sneha Hurrain (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move To the killing of Samia Sahid she is not notable except as a victim of a crime. The only reason the crime is notable is that Pakistan is actually changing laws based directly on this incident and that someone was arrested for threatening an MP over the incident.--Savonneux (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. JDDJS (talk) 05:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above Keep comments.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article quality is seriously lacking. Fails WP:ONEEVENT and there is nothing more to this article other than the event that took place. 80.249.56.149 (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this actually amounts to any substance apart from the event happening itself, there's nothing else actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG this is a honour killing and has got substantial International media coverage in the ex Guardian ,BBC ,Telegraph particurly after Qandeel Baloch this case has got substantial coverage and the this case has became cause celebre of honour killing .Now whether the coverage will be WP:LASTING or not cannot be said at this point. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article quality is seriously lacking. Fails WP:ONEEVENT and there is nothing more to this article other than the event that took place. 80.249.56.149 (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is lacking, but that is not a reason for deletion. There is more information available in reliable sources online, and the article should be improved based on those. CrispyGlover (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment I added new reference. she was raped before murder. This is a new angle in honour killings case investigation. The follow up of this case in main stream media shows that this page must not be deleted. ^[1] ^[2]^[3]Sneha Hurrain (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-37258853
^ http://tribune.com.pk/story/1175262/british-woman-raped-killed-honour-pakistan/
^ http://www.dawn.com/news/1281800/ex-husband-father-charged-in-samia-shahids-murder-case

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Heinz Bühler[edit]

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

Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found; Subject does not meet WP:SOLDIER the award is in dispute and cannot be confirmed with archival records.

This article is one of roughly 500 similar stub articles created by editor Jim Sweeney in the span of about three months in late 2008 to early 2009.

The topic of the notability of Knight's Cross winners has been extensively discussed here: Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles; the summary in this subsection (Part 3). There's currently no consensus that a single award of the Knight's Cross meets SOLDIER1 due to the facts that not all were awarded for valour, and that too many were awarded (over 7,000). K.e.coffman (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect name to list article where mentioned. Otherwise, at this point, not seeing notability for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect -- I do not believe that this award makes a person notable per se. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list as an unproven awardee.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The de-Nazification continues. Without evidence the subject received the Knight's Cross the subject isn't notable. I look forward to seeing refunds when proper sourcing can be found. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the relevant alpha list. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 29 August 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 Rick and Morty. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plumbus[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; I could not find any significant media coverage of a Plumbus. This fictional item does not inherit notability from Rick and Morty either. The article also does not distinguish between reality and ficiton; it describes a Plumbus as a real item. Sunmist (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is only relevant from tv show. No independent coverage. Meatsgains (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TV show to forestall inadvertent recreation - David Gerard (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (after delete) to Rick and Morty; not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as of now. Unless the Plumbus has a much larger role in the series, an article isn't appropriate for now. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rick and Morty: I agree the subject is non-notable and lacks enough independent coverage to justify having its own page. Aoba47 (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For ruining the joke on my userpage! (Just kidding, I actually vote Redirect) Jergling (talk) 19:09, 2 September 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 00:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mod3sto[edit]

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

Non-notable EDM duo. No sources other than Soundcloud and Facebook. Small social media following, no third party coverage, no major recordings or appearances or collaborations. Page is clearly promotional and, at best WP:TOOSOON. JamesG5 (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - Neglected to mention that the account name that created the page clearly belongs to one of the members of the duo, and the account that's been editing it & removing tags & templates is a single use that's editing no other pages. JamesG5 (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The provided references are useless for indicating notability. Needs independent, third part coverage in significant quantity to merit serious consideration. ShelbyMarion (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:TOOSOON and purely promotional, obviously written by the band or someone close to them. About the only coverage that isn't the duo's own social media pages is this, but it's a blog page. Richard3120 (talk) 19:44, 3 September 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 00:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Space Hover[edit]

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

non-notable app. Recently released. No major coverage. noq (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. No coverage whatsoever from reliable sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing here that is reliable enough to pass even the basic guidelines of notability. Please delete 80.249.56.149 (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, call me an old tyrant, but language like "The easy-to-learn-but-hard-to-master" really doesn't exactly constitute as wiki-worthy copy. 80.249.56.149 (talk) 15:44, 2 September 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. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Kuznetsov (mathematician)[edit]

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

Sources are all liustings or non notable awards. Further research reveals noin-depth independent RS Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pure mathematics is a low-citation field, so the citation record doesn't tell us much, but I think the EMS Prize is enough for WP:PROF#C2 (it's about major national or international-level prizes, and this one is international and major). For instance our article European Mathematical Society lists many EMS Prize winners who have gone on to win the Fields medal, the top award in mathematics. Additionally speaking at the ICM is a significant honor, perhaps not enough by itself but also indicative of importance as a mathematician. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know that the following argument is invalid, but here goes, anyway: I've heard of the guy, and skimmed things that others have written about stuff he's discovered, so surely he can't be that obscure or non-notable. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with David Eppstein that invited participation at ICM plus a prize by a major society (I wouldn't call the EMS congress "non-notable") is largely enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Similarly to the opinion voiced by 67.198.37.16 I know of the guy's name through seeing it on many seminar or conference posters and presentations though I don't work in the field (as they said this is not a valid argument for inclusion but certainly it points to there being more correctly sourced stuff to add later to the article: since I think notability is already established I think this is a point that deserves being made). jraimbau (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One should be careful with "I remember hearing his name" arguments. Kuznetsov is not that uncommon a name; Yu. A. Kuznetsov and maybe N. G. Kuznetsov are both mathematicians with more established reputations than this one. So one should be careful to make sure that one is rememberlng the correct Kuznetsov. But of course the possible notability of those other people is irrelevant to whether this one is notable enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per European Mathematical Society prize and mentions / citations I'm seeing in Google books. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:24, 29 August 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 speedily, as the article consists substantially of copied content which appears at www.linkedin.com/in/ali-hamedani-a3b484127 and www.facebook.com/bbcalihamedani/about/?entry_point=page_nav_about_item&tab=page_info with no evidence of copyright release. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Hamedani[edit]

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

PROD and CSD templates removed. Article created by single-purpose account, with probable conflict of interest, for promotional purposes - contrary to our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Does not appear to meet general notability guideline nor the criteria at WP:JOURNALIST. Citobun (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:19, 28 August 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. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Mandelbaum[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:PROF The Sloan Fellowship is to "provide support and recognition to early-career scientists and scholars" so is not sufficient for notability. Sources are press releases from the University where she is an Associate Professor. Her high citation works are the Sloan Digital Sky Surveys where there are scores of co-authors. Jbh ^Talk 15:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The nominator is correct to imply that it is difficult to ascertain the degree of independent achievement with papers with such vast numbers of co-authors. However, Looking at the well-cited papers with fewer co-authors, I find provisionally that WP:Prof#C1 is passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Possibly you are seeing something I am not. I have found few papers with fewer than ~10 co-authors. Possibly this is normal in her field but I did not see many where she was the principle author either. She is an early-in-career Associate Professor. It is highly unlikely, mired in a pack of co-authors and this early in her career, with few papers which she is principle author of, that her work has yet "made a significant impact in their scholarly discipline" per PROF#C1. In such a case I would expect to see some coverage in RS or major awards within the discipline rather than "up-and-comer" awards if she passed PROF#C1. Jbh ^Talk 01:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is in that part of an academic career that is frustrating for Wikipedia editors. The awards are all early career awards. There is little documentation of the impact of an academic career prior to receiving major awards or getting an obituary in Physics Today. I've added her CV and pubs to the article (2 documents for some reason). She divides her publications into regular work and large group collaborations. As for papers with less than 10 authors, she published 12 of them in 2015 and 6 in 2014 if I've counted authors right. As for highly cited articles:

2013 first author of 8, cited by 106, Cosmological parameter constraints from galaxy–galaxy lensing and galaxy clustering with the SDSS DR7
2010 second author of 7, cited by 224, Confirmation of general relativity on large scales from weak lensing and galaxy velocities
2008 first author of 3, cited by 172, A halo mass—concentration relation from weak lensing
2006 first author of 6, cited by 177, Density profiles of galaxy groups and clusters from SDSS galaxy–galaxy weak lensing

StarryGrandma (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think the Falco-DeBenedetti Career Development Professorship is good enough for WP:PROF#C5 (its name makes it sound like a mid-career thing rather than a higher-level distinguished professorship) but looking at Google scholar and discounting the SDSS hits still gives a convincing pass of WP:PROF#C1. And I think coverage of a project she leads in a Nature news piece [3] is another indication of significance. (See also [4] [5] [6] for less-high-profile media coverage of her research.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed that she passes Prof C1. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:52, 31 August 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 Indonesian Basketball League. Wizardman 14:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IBL Draft[edit]

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

Unsourced orphan article. Maybe merge to Indonesian Basketball League but a Google search does not turn up any reliable sources for this. EditorDownUnder (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Indonesian Basketball League. Sources almost certainly exist in Indonesian news media, but you're not going to find them by searching Google in English. Deli nk (talk) 16:25, 2 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Brown[edit]

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

A B-movie bit player, a minor jeweller and an unsuccessful singer? This looks more like some sort of attempt at promotion than a notable person. Sitush (talk) 08:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is entirely sourced to the subjects own websites. Even using these generally promotional types of sources we still have nothing that suggests she is even marginally notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have added women project to talkpage so participants are notifies of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability; not significant RS coverage can be found to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After much searching, didn't find anything -- problem is, with a generic-sounding name like "Judy Brown", it is tough to filter out all the other JBs out there.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:02, 3 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crichton University Campus Boat Club[edit]

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

No indication of Notability. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable student club. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the references show that this Club stands out over others. They do not support notability. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:27, 29 August 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. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I Am (Kristin Chenoweth album)[edit]

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

This was for a while a redirect to artist, which I felt was a good idea. This doesn't seem to gave charted or attracted many reviews - everything is on Allmusic and the other source given, ~~the obscure~~ crosswalk.com doesn't convince me it tips into notability. Boleyn (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment crosswalk.com is not obscure. I redirected the article originally. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The album did reach one of the Billboard charts, albeit apparently not the main album chart. [7] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - charting establishes prima facie notability - David Gerard (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It would need to chart in the right kind of chart, and I'm not convinced on this one (but it's not an area I'm well-versed in). TO meet WP:NALBUM it also needs more than just to chart: All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Boleyn (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Chenoweth herself has scored a No. 50 on the main Top 200. I wouldn't object to a redirect noting the chart performance - David Gerard (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A person just added a couple of reviews, from a Buffalo paper and a Florida paper; they're not online but let's assume they're a paragraph long. Then there's the Crosswalk and AllMusic reviews -- longer, but in a more specialized venue. This is probably enough to meet WP:NALBUMS #1, I think. Then Billboard has a notice that it opened at #50 on the album charts (whether it went higher I don't know), so that's maybe WP:NALBUMS #2 (I don't know if "appeared on any country's national music chart" means as low as #50, but for songs it goes down to #100, and the "any country" is America, a particularly populous and wealthy country). All in all I think it meets our album notability standards. Herostratus (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I would tend to agree that this meet WP:NALBUMS #1. There is non-trival coverage in The Buffalo News, The Ledger, Allmusic, as well as Detroit News. I don't have full-text access to that last one, but its particulars are: Henrickson, Eric (April 15, 2005). "Kristin Chenoweth, As I Am (Sony Classical)", Detroit News, p. E7. Furthermore, the crosswalk.com article was also published in print as Cumbee, Jim (June 2005). "In Review: Music – Kristin Chenoweth: As I Am", CCM Magazine 27 (12): 66. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:46, 31 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emsworth & District[edit]

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

Non notable bus company, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 03:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only independent source provided is the Companies House database which establishes that the company exists, but has no bearing on notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Metropolitan90's response above. The only sources on the news link are local ones. Minima © (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability, nor sufficient RS to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 4 September 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 speedily deleted under criterion G11, with no prejudice to recreation from the current draft. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brame & Lorenceau Gallery[edit]

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

There is some notability for this gallery, but in it's current form it looks like an advertisement for a business with almost not references. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per WP:TNT. The article is quite promotional, but I'm also concerned about it having been copied from the frwiki article, fr:Galerie Brame & Lorenceau, which was created as a copyvio, blanked, recreated, and modified, but still looks to retain a good amount of the same text, in addition to being poorly sourced and promotional. That said, it seems notable, so I created Draft:Brame & Lorenceau Gallery, very much a stub, starting from scratch (i.e. used none of the existing content). If this is kept, we can delete the draft of course, but the draft exists as a substitute if the content here is unusable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 28 August 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 List of LGBT awareness days. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian Visibility Day[edit]

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

Gives no information. Has no references. Can't see anything other than a few social media posts around the time of the 2016 event. Not a notable event. Rayman60 (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of LGBT awareness days. My search of scholarly literature found some info about activists involved in putting celebrations for this day, but nothing about the day itself and/or their motivations in promoting it. Sandbergja (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of LGBT awareness days; does not appear to be independently notable at this point per available sources. The blurb can go in the table in the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 3 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forex Club[edit]

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

Not notable. Refs seem to consist of press releases and entries in databases, no in-depth coverage that’s independent of the topic. It was deleted from wp.ru for similar reasons, and if they can’t find evidence of its notability in its home country then it probably doesn’t exist. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all comes close to actual substance, because the article only lists information wanting to clients and investors; the sources merely consist of PR or PR-like. SwisterTwister talk 22:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly WP:PROMO and no indications of notability. The articles listed as competitors could also stand to undergo an AfD:

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - incredibly minor RSes (if "finance-magnates" even counts as one) are all it has. The rest of the sourcing is awful and irrelevant - David Gerard (talk) 22:38, 28 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween Howls Comedy Festival[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, promo. The Banner talk 20:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 20:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; appears to exist for advertising and to stuff the article full of both notable and non-notable comedians, as strange form of coat rack or perhaps link farming? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 3 September 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 Psychic TV discography. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just Drifting[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Force the Hand of Chance. There's some coverage of this ([8], [9], [10]), but not enough that it needs a separate article. --Michig (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 28 August 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 Psychic TV discography. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sirens (Ultradrug – Thee Sequel)[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Psychic TV discography where a brief note on the album contents would suffice. --Michig (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 28 August 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 Psychic TV discography. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ultradrug[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Psychic TV discography. A brief note on the album contents there would suffice. --Michig (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Michig. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:49, 28 August 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 Psychic TV discography. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AL – OR – AL[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography. No real coverage found, but no reason not to redirect. --Michig (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Michig. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. No coverage in reliable secondary sources as far as I can tell. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:28, 28 August 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 16:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jaromir Astl[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. He wasn't the only engineer on the Orion project. He has multiple mentions in the second source largely because he was interviewed for the book, not because his work was particularly substantial. Moreover, he wasn't interviewed for him, he was interviewed for the project. MSJapan (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion With no prejudice toward the question of his notability or lack thereof, I suggest that if the consensus is to remove this article, a redirect to the page for this notable film may be appropriate: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Mars_By_A-Bomb_(film) ) BoyRD (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, a walk-on role in one unbuilt project is not enough. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:16, 29 August 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 Thee Majesty. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vitruvian Pan[edit]

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

Does not satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 06:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thee Majesty. Worth a redirect. --Michig (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Michig. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:49, 28 August 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 Psychic TV discography#Singles. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magick Defends Itself[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography#Singles. --Michig (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Michig. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:49, 28 August 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 Psychic TV discography. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tune In (Turn On The Acid House)[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band's discography. Could you maybe consider alternatives to deletion rather than creating dozens of AfDs? --Michig (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Michig. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychic_TV#Discography; not individually notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 2 September 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 Psychic TV discography. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrahouse The Twelve Inch Mixes[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography. --Michig (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Michig. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:48, 28 August 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 Psychic TV discography. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Mind[edit]

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

Does not satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography. --Michig (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Michig. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:48, 28 August 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. Sandstein 09:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of start page services[edit]

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

Random list of "start pages" for internet browsers. No indication of any notability. Only references are to things like alexa that do not provide significant coverage. noq (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- @Noq: Thank you for taking the time to question the notability of the List of start page services. I, however, do not share your opinion regarding deletion. There is no Wikipedia guideline requiring all entries in a list to be notable (WP:LISTCOMPANY) and it contains some rather notable examples, to which this article provides a useful context. The list is based on that provided by iGoogleAlternatives.info. Alexa rank provides a useful indication (though not proof) of notability. Furthermore, there seems to be no guideline against these sorts of lists, which provides a useful and objective context to the Start page article.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- OR with unclear criteria for inclusion. Sources are all primary. This topic has not been a subject of inquiry by secondary sources and therefore lacks notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:24, 28 August 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.

Withdrawn by nominator - the article has been expanded to show Billboard charted songs. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carnage (DJ)[edit]

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

Four months after being deleted via AfD, this article continues to fail WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Could find no significant secondary source to support notability. Sources cited are concert promoters or record vendors. Appears to have no works that have charted or won significant awards; nothing really to support notability per WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that @Rizhopper: can help by making this page notable. XPanettaa (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
De-prod. I have added charts to the album Papi Gordon, per WP:MUSICBIO the article is notable. - Rizhopper (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I find this to be okay and fine, but with new improvements to be done as all. DBrown SPS (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think an admin should remove the AfD because the reason why it was there in the first place, is now fixed. - Rizhopper (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Quite right. XPanettaa (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:00, 29 August 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 Census of India prior to independence. MBisanz ^talk 16:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1911 Census of the North West Frontier Province[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating after first nomination resulted in no clear consensus. Completely un-referenced census. Not even a single stat has been cited. Delete or redirect to Census in Pakistan. Similar discussion can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1901 Census of the North West Frontier Province. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly oppose redirecting this to Census in Pakistan. Pakistan didn't exist in 1911. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@86.17.222.157: Please see the deletion discussion of 1901 Census of the North West Frontier Province. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The non-admin close of that discussion was obviously incorrect. Census in Pakistan is clearly, and rightly, only about censuses since independence. A non-anachronistic redirect target would be Census of India prior to independence. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Census of India prior to independence. On the previous discussion, I was partly thinking of an article on an earlier census that was so incomplete as to be meaningless as a comprehensive statistical source. As North West Frontier was actually the "unadministered zone", so that I am dubious that this would be complete enough to be a useful source. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. I don't think an article consisting only of a table of information belongs in an encyclopedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Varun FEB2003 ^{Offline when signed} 14:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- uncited original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:50, 3 September 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 Psychic TV discography. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E-Lusive[edit]

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

Does not satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV discography. --Michig (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:32, 28 August 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. Seems like a merge/redirect was done instead; if folks want to delete Live my last please ask at WP:RFD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Live my last[edit]

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

A working linked page of this band's Wiki has already been made so this one is totally unnecessary BriBoutB (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Live my last[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like you're trying to change the title of the page, but have copied-and-pasted the article into a new page. This does not preserve the history of the page. I have added the {{histmerge}} tag to the new page, Live My Last (note the capitalization). Sunmist3 (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have history-merged to Live My Last the edits of Live my Last before the copy-and-paste event. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:42, 28 August 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 Force the Hand of Chance. MBisanz ^talk 16:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Dark Matter[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Force the Hand of Chance. Just a brief description there should suffice. --Michig (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cold Dark Matter; not individually notable. Worthwhile content (if any) can be merged from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 2 September 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 16:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Meadows Mobile Home Park[edit]

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

Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Note that this was previously PRODed, but the article creator removed the PROD based on belief that listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is automatic justification for article. A trailer-park or any neighborhood within a city/town needs to be independently notable. This one is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona for similar discussion. MB 22:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". There is nothing, as the nominator claims, in Geoland which says that a populated place which meets the main requirement of Geoland must also show independent notability if it is located within a city/town. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete upon inspection, these all appear to be non-notable neighbourhoods within recognized communities where you can park a mobile home. GEOLAND does not automatically confer notability, therefore. GEOLAND is expressly not a carte blanche for every subdivision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Based on what I found online (real estate listings, help wanted, management office, etc.), this appears to be a fairly large senior housing complex. It might just pass my standards. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This place has exactly 157 spaces. It has a clubhouse and a swimming pool. A relatively small park of a couple of hundred residents. Nothing to make it notable. If there were an apartment building, would we even be having this discussion. This is just one of hundreds or thousands of such places. MB 05:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If they are within a recognized community like this one is, then they're just a neighborhood. A stand-alone one might be notable . DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable subdivision; no indications or notability nor significant RS coverage to confirm notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:43, 5 September 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 00:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phil & Wil[edit]

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

Little evidence of notability Jimfbleak (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was just about to nominate it myself. There are absolutely no sources available except for this which only contains a mention of the name (时光隧道). This is a Xinyao group but I don't see any evidence that it is notable. There are also very few sources available to verify the information. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Me three. I initially tagged this for speedy, as did JMHamo (talk · contribs), but we were declined by Adam9007 (talk · contribs) on the basis of their charting (once, at #11) in Hong Kong. The article doesn't say how long it stayed on the charts, or, more importantly, provide any sort of source for verification, so to me this is not a very credible assertion of significance. Be that as it may, now that we have moved to AfD, I think the lack of sources is a fatal omission, especially since the article badly needs to be re-written, and this cannot be done without sources. ubiquity (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there will be sources for this. Xinyao was more of a grassroots musical movement. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:19, 1 September 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. Consensus is that the fractal does not qualify for an English Wikipedia article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ana's fractal[edit]

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

Non-notable fractal. A Google search only gives the unrelated fractal by Clifford Pickover. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find this fractal to be one of the most beautiful fully mathematical fractals.

You really can not find it anywhere else on the internet, but it is only because I found it and have not put it anywhere else yet.

It is a fractal art with the precise instructions, how to recreate it.

On the other hand, you can check, that it is not something that goes with a different name. So it is not violating any moral or written laws, and it is helpful to people, who would like to recreate this fractal and use it to decorate anything, or to the students who might wonder, how exactly is this fractal created.

This fractal is included in the course "Mathematical Way of Thinking" in the top Georgian university "Free University of Tbilisi" (professor Amiran Ambroladze, PhD in mathematics, specialization: Fractals and Chaos). So this article might be helpful at least for them right now.

So, this article does not violate any rules, it can not confuse anybody or cause any harm, it is beautiful and it is helpful for at least some people. I do not see any reason it should be deleted :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guggger (talk • contribs) 06:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. All the information provided in this article can be checked directly, with just copy-pasting the given code to Wolfram Mathematica, running it and observing the output. Or by implementing the described algorithm directly in any programming language.

I understand that I might be subjective on this matter, but before deleting this article, please explain to me what harm can it possibly cause, or why is this not suitable for wikipedia.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guggger (talk • contribs) 06:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is Wikipedia's policy against original research. If it's research that hasn't been published in some refereed source, then for the purposes of that policy, it's considered original research. If this gets published in a journal and the paper can be cited in the Wikipedia article, then it will no longer be "original research", so there could be a Wikipedia article about it if it's considered notable. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced original research. In answer to the paragraph immediately above this one, see our policies, in particular on original research and conflict of interest over publishing your own work on Wikipedia.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Guggger's own words attest to its lack of notability: "You really can not find it anywhere else on the internet". Clarityfiend (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Michael Hardy and John Blackburne for your explanations :) Guggger (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Gurram Mikaberidze[reply]

Delete. The fractal is pretty. But it is obviously original research which is not permitted. This policy is stated again at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, "Per our policy on original research, please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: 1 Primary (original) research." As noted above, if notability of the content could be demonstrated, and it was supported by reliable, verifiable source(s), most likely at least one peer-reviewed or refereed journal in this case, it could be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Donner60 (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found in Google books nor Google scholar; fails WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 2 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MLWGS: The Musical[edit]

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

Non-notable show created less than 24 hours before this nomination. — Esquivalience (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The show was created and produced several months ago, but it is a musical which is about life at a particular high school, produced only at that particular school, and has not received any coverage in reliable sources outside that school. Not notable per WP:GNG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exactly. An utterly non-notable school production. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. • DP • ^{huh?}

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hyundai Portico[edit]

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

The Hyundai Portico concept of 2005 has had no published indication of intent for production beyond 2010. It is assumed at this point the vehicle's production has been cancelled, or shelved indefinitely. This article of the Portico as a production vehicle should be deleted. Dirty Blueshirt (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- may be worth to keep it as an article about the concept vehicle. I'm seeing some coverage in industry related journals: link. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might be possible to keep, but an article on a proposed car that ended up never being produced seems a bit minor for WP. Borock (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are notable concept cars, but this does not seem so special.Borock (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on second thoughts per discussion above. The sources that I listed above provide rather trivial mentions anyway. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably WP:TOOSOON. -- Dane2007 ^talk 06:58, 4 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Pitsch[edit]

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

Fails GNG as significant RS coverage cannot be found; fails WP:SOLDIER as the Knight's Cross award is questionable. The subject does not have a de.wiki article. This article is one of roughly 500 similar stub articles created by editor Jim Sweeney in the span of about three months in late 2008 to early 2009.

The subject is mentioned in a book by Reynolds; however, I would consider this to be a WP:QS source, as his work has been described by historian Robert Citino as of of those that "flirt with the admiration" for the Waffen-SS, with some "[going] farther than that". Please see Waffen-SS in popular culture for more details.

The topic of the notability of Knight's Cross winners has been extensively discussed here: Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles; the summary in this subsection (Part 3). This article does not meet the low bar of WP:Soldier for WWII Germany, as the award is questionable, however, PROD has been declined on the grounds that this needs AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- medal is disputed, fails to meet general notability. Indy beetle (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list as an unproven awardee.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails criteria. Maybe someday we'll get a REFUND. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We have had considerable doubt as to whether this award confers notability. In this case, even whether the award was made is somewhat dubious. Perhaps this is a case of a man being recommended, but that being overtaken by the end of the war. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 4 September 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. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mamas & Papas[edit]

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

Check of notability only showed up articles of recalled products and standard retail links. Rayman60 (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To me this is a well-known UK shop/brand for baby stuff, and newspaper articles about it surely get it past GNG, even though the article desperately needs attention. For example, [11], [12], [13], [14], [15],[16],[17],[18] Lelijg (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Leljig has provided some pretty good independent sources in that selection, the best ones coming from the Telegraph, Independent and Daily Express. These three sources should be just enough for the article to establish notability. Minima © (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article is now tidied up with added refs. Lelijg (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an unusual baby produce company in including dads in its name. Appears to have somewhat of a cult following for its products, which is born out by sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 4 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mateen Estevez[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC for lack of available independent sources. - Mr X 12:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. -- Ben Ben ^(talk) 02:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - perhaps will be notable someday, but nothing suggests that today.--Rpclod (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO. -- Dane2007 ^talk 06:58, 4 September 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 List of roads in Nanshan, Shenzhen. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 11:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xinghua Road, Shenzhen[edit]

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

The only source for this article is a directory. No evidence the road is in any way notable. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect to List of roads in Nanshan, Shenzhen. Neutrality^talk 16:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge/redirect to List of roads in Nanshan, Shenzhen - ~~nothing suggests that the notability guidelines are met.~~ Defer to User:Notthebestusername - work your magic.--Rpclod (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The street isn't even mentioned in either news sources or local chronicles. --Antigng (talk) 05:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of roads in Nanshan, Shenzhen. Actually the road is a locally prominent one as it leads from Sea world to the Northern part of Nanshan ( I live in Shenzhen ). Xinhua road runs along Nanhai e-cool (a huge artisan hub). However, rather than delete the page, I would suggest merging it into the page containing Roads of Shenzhen. There are a good number of news sites that mention this road (they are in Chinese, as is most information on Chinese cities - let me try to find a few English news papers that mention it).
Redirect to List of roads in Nanshan, Shenzhen; not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:46, 5 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bunny demo[edit]

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

PROD removed by page's creator. The album has no coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Aust331 (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing indicates that album notability criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:NALBUM; no coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NALBUM. -- Dane2007 ^talk 06:57, 4 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Ortag[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, as Ortag has never made an appearance in a fully professional league, has never made a senior international appearance, and has no solid independent notability. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. 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) 13:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NFOOTY. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NFOOTY. -- Dane2007 ^talk 06:53, 4 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trisha Uptown[edit]

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

The article fails PORNBIO as the only award is XBIZ Award for Web Babe of the Year in 2009, which is not well known and significant. Significant RS coverage is not available to meet GNG. Other mentions, such as Hustler Honey, are trivial. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as only a minor award and lacking in mainstream coverage so does not pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. -- Dane2007 ^talk 06:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's sound analysis. Just another BLP without nontrivial independent, reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:33, 4 September 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 Psychic TV. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Direction ov Travel[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV. Probably did receive sufficient print coverage, but redirect for now. --Michig (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Psychic TV. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 01:54, 28 August 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; votes not based on policies have been disregarded--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D-Hoops[edit]

The sport D-Hoops has been issued a full utility patent from the United States Patent office. It is recognized as a legitimate sport / game through careful and thorough review and has legal merits. Please carefully review the wording of this patent issue prior to stating, "this sport doesn't appear to be notable yet", [19] I highly recommend D-Hoops is not deleted based on firm legal documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dischoopplayer1 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

* I have reviewed the patent for #8,715,115 Disc Hoop Game and apparatus. There are 17 citations stated regarding Dhoops. To delete this article on merits of sport/game not notable would indicate defamation and bias against this sport while favoring others. Dhoops clearly qualifies to remain as a Wikipedia article based on a strong legal foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalPatent1 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sport D-Hoops has been issued a full utility patent from the United States Patent office. It is recognized as a legitimate sport / game through careful and thorough review and has legal merits. Please carefully review the wording of this patent issue prior to stating, "this sport doesn't appear to be notable yet", [20] I highly recommend D-Hoops is not deleted based on firm legal documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dischoopplayer1 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This sport doesn't appear to be notable yet, as I can't find any more sources. Adam9007 (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the patent for #8,715,115 Disc Hoop Game and apparatus. There are 17 citations stated regarding Dhoops. To delete this article on merits of sport/game not notable would indicate defamation and bias against this sport while favoring others. Dhoops clearly qualifies to remain as a Wikipedia article based on a strong legal foundation.
Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG, no coverage other than a local news story saying some local guy got a patent. Patented things are not inherently notable. Also, I'm a bit confused as to why there's a keep comment in the header of this AfD. Can someone sort this out? Smartyllama (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly not notable. I don't understand what the ramblings above about legal documents mean, but they don't alter the non-notability of the subject -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:27, 3 September 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. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 06:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. Everett Prewitt[edit]

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

I came upon this article while browsing through page creations by a sock farm uncovered in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Heathnw77. There's a little coverage, but I don't think it's enough to establish notability. The majority of sources seem to be press releases and blogs. The Wikipedia article cites a reporter's column at Cleveland.com that muses on his own career prospects, which does not seem like a good source to establish notability for his friend. The awards do not look significant, and a single review from Kirkus Reviews is not enough. It looks too soon for an article yet, and this is likely a vanity page created by a paid editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep as minor novelist who has gotten some prizes, press attention. There was a feature story about his first novel (The Plain Dealer, Author hailed for first novel, 3 August 2005.) a major paper, albeit in his hometown. I sourced 2 prizes to the Black Issues Book Review. Added these to the page along with his own website. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Also sourced his ALA prize.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:30, 20 August 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, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. , 'by one of our basic principles: WP is an encyclopedia . He has a full entry in Contemporary Authors (also known as Gale Contemporary authors, and available online free through most medium and large public libraries as Literary Resource Center.[21] This is the standard reference work for recent American literature (and some other literatures also ); as the standard encyclopedicwork in the field, everyone with a full entry in it is automatically suitable for inclusion in WP. (The easiest way of determining this is to search in Worldcat--if there's a Contemporary Authors listing it will appear as one of the entries for the name. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 28 August 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.

[1] ttp://www.dawn.com/news/1272264

[2] ttp://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-37258853

[3] ttp://tribune.com.pk/story/1175262/british-woman-raped-killed-honour-pakistan/

[4] ttp://www.dawn.com/news/1281800/ex-husband-father-charged-in-samia-shahids-murder-case

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]