Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 August	5 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warwickshire bus route X17[edit]

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

Non notable bus route which fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Not enough coverage in secondary sources that establish notability. Class455fan1 (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable and unsourced bus route as if we have enough of them already. Ajf773 (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no citations other than timetable. Cygnes64 (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. The article has only a single source and it isn't even an independent one. A Google search didn't reveal much more than that. Omni Flames (talk) 11:12, 8 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regal Furniture[edit]

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

Only a single reference which doesn't mention the article subject. No evidence of notability nor of its claim to notability as "... the largest exporter of processed wooden, LB & metal products". Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any further sources for notability evidence.JackTracker (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks any coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as promotional article. Quis separabit? 20:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete and I honestly consider this A7 and G11 material. SwisterTwister talk
Delete -- "corporate spam" with insufficient sources to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As this is nearly A7-worthy and has nowhere near enoug coverage to meet WP:GNG. Omni Flames (talk) 11:13, 8 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 02:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chieftec[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Lack of coverage in secondary sources other than routine listings. AfDing because it was prodded at least one time in it's past. Savonneux (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Company is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources, thus lacking notability. Meatsgains (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a micro-stub article on a non-notable company. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I recently erroneously prodded a second time for lack of notability. ~Kvng (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ethanlu121 (talk) 21:48, 9 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 02:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Jabbour (Lebanese singer)[edit]

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

Autobiographical article by a reality-show contestant, already deleted three times including WP:Articles for deletion/Raphael Jabbour and salted. This one perhaps escapes WP:CSD#G4 repost of deleted material as there are more references, but they seem to be the sort of coverage any reality-show contestant gets, plus one about a song he has since released. Maybe he will go on to build a notable career to the standard of WP:MUSICBIO, but this is way WP:Too soon. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under WP:G4 - Clearly a recreation of an article deleted via a Deletion Discussion Exemplo347 (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article about Raphael Jabbour should not be deleted because it's a article about a famous singer who has released a song. This article has all sources that a article need and is respecting the Wikipedia policy . I don't know why it should be deleted. RaphaelJabbour123 (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC
Delete per G4. Good call, @Exemplo347. Quis separabit? 20:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JohnCD ,Fails WP:MUSICBIO for now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:27, 11 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 02:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wall-Eyed (band)[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced doesn't necessarily mean not notable, but in this case there doesn't seem to be any coverage in reliable sources or any indication that WP:NMUSIC is satisfied. --Michig (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article as currently written is either self-hype or fancruft. Quis separabit? 20:29, 5 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 02:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good to Love[edit]

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

Unreferenced and promotional Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable song published on Youtube. Meatsgains (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:28, 5 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 02:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Manydeeds[edit]

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

Non-notable local judge, even if a figure of pride for local Native Americans. Orange Mike | Talk 20:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete. The sources given don't seem to support the claim to notability given(the only Native American circuit judge in Wisconsin). If sources were given which suggest that is somehow notable in Wisconsin, I might support. I would add that the page seems to have been created by someone from the Circuit Court in Eau Claire County, given the username. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - circuit court judges are just not that notable in Wisconsin; it's a pretty low rank. As to the username: it's ECCuser, implying that the article creator merely uses the circuit court (presumably in their profession); I would not sweat the potential COI, and have declined to block the username. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. I don't expect there to be any sources given the low rank. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pardon me for bringing it up here, but isn't the username still against policy as potentially shared? Presumably many people use the county court. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - The username is singular, not plural. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes. My point is that the name could apply to any individual who uses that court. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a judge of the lowest level. I don't see why Wikipedia should have an article on every judge in the world. Strictly local coverage by sources. Royal broil 03:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Begrudging Delete As for the user name, the ECC probably means "Eau Claire County." I am from Wisconsin and formerly from the area in question and the courthouse holds a large portion of the county government so it could easily be part of the sheriff's department, health department or anything else for that matter. I can attest that there would be little to no news coverage beyond the county the judge sits in. There are about 250 WI circuit court justices -- about 50 in Milwaukee County alone. As much as I would personally would not mind an article on him (more important currently than many Wisconsin Assembly member articles who died 100 years ago) I would agree that it would open a can of worms. Dolotta (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:11, 7 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 The Orange Lights. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Life is Still Beautiful[edit]

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

no evidence of notability (charts). AfD'ing the band too and the lighthouse family guy from this band is already in the process of being debated for deletion Rayman60 (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As the band has an article that just survived an AFD (no consensus) this should be redirected to the band. -- GB fan 18:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to The Orange Lights. Can be adequately covered there. --Michig (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per nom. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:15, 5 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 List of Forgotten Realms deities. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iyachtu Xvim[edit]

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

This character currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:38, 11 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 speedy keep. WP:SNOW. It'd be unnecessary to leave this open any longer. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Make Your Own Danger[edit]

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

Not well referenced or notable Rathfelder (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Obviously notable given even a cursory Google search, which could have found coverage from Pitchfork, The Wall Street Journal, Billboard, SPIN, PopMatters, and Allmusic. --Michig (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:NALBUMS #1 per source examples provided above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provided by Michig demonstrate that the album has significant coverage in reliable source, passing WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the reliable sources identified above will hopefully be used to expand this stub, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 16:33, 9 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 speedy delete under criterion G7, request by page creator. Editors are reminded to make sure WP:GNG is met before trying to create this page again. —C.Fred (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Tower[edit]

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

This was a contested prod. The article does not appear now to meet the standard set by the WP:GNG; the only reliable source which pops up in the WP:VG custom source is a sponsored piece at GameZone. This is unlikely to be notable at this time. Izno (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As original author of page, trusting Izno that the additional citations given for press coverage is not notable enough. We'll try again after larger press sites cover it. Skyreacherent (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Skyreacherent (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Rodin' Flash[edit]

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

14-year old DJ who claims to have founded his own record label. The article tries to assert enough notability that it is not eligible for CSD, and the article is referenced so it is not eligible for PROD. —Latchem 17:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete While sourced, none of the sources are independent reliable sources. You have his Soundcloud, his Twitter, and music streaming sites. None of these shows actual notability. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No credible claim of satisfying WP:NMUSIC and no coverage found in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page should not be speedily deleted because DJ Rodin' Flash is a prominent music artist in the 21st century. This person proves notable because he meets the criteria for musicians and ensembles. Supernightmare101 (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show where he meets any of these criteria? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a third-party source - ReverbNation Rankings. I also added discography - in which he released 2 separate EP's Supernightmare101 (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability in spades. TimothyJosephWood 17:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Provides enough information to show notablilty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingles2222 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC) — Wingles2222 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Supernightmare101 (talk • contribs). [reply]
Keep. Look at the box on the right side of the browser: https://g.co/kgs/6fNCvF. There's a panel all about him and his discography. Savagelions (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC) — Savagelions (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Supernightmare101 (talk • contribs). [reply]

Seeing as Google indexes from Wikipedia, that's not a sign of notability. That's listing information already on the page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was there before I made this Wikipedia page and I used it as a source of information to gather up his discography when I was making this WIkipedia page Supernightmare101 (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All self-published sources cited. And creating new fake editors will not help the discussion. --Ita140188 (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cited that he was ranked #28 on ReverbNation - that is not a self-published source, that is a third-party source that has no direct relationship with the artist. Supernightmare101 (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ReverbNation is not considered a reliable national music chart however. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the creator of the article was just blocked along with the two SPA's for sockpuppetry. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Surprise, surprise. No quicker way to sink your article at AfD than to create socks to defend it. clpo13_(talk) 20:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Numerous sources with the article, yet all of them are either user generated or unreliable. Not a single one is an independent, objective indication of notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No indication of any notability whatsoever. Given it's socks arguing for inclusion I would even suggest a snow to get this over and done with. KaisaL (talk) 17:50, 11 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. Subject now passes WP:NFOOTY. Nominator and all other editors involved now agree keep. Fenix down (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Ijaha[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Previous concern is unknown. However, Ijaha has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:12, 4 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) 09:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Now meets WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has now made his professional debut. Giant Snowman 16:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:FOOTY has played in the first match of this season for Plymouth against Luton Town in Football League Two a fully Professional League per this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As nominator, having played in league, Ijaha now meets WP:NSPORT. @Fenix down: @GiantSnowman: you may want to reconsider your !votes. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:36, 6 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 02:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rayan (singer)[edit]

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

Although this may be BLPRODed, my PROD was removed with absolutely no explanations yet I myself searched all local newspapers and have found nothing; I also still confirm everything from my PROD. SwisterTwister talk 17:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have removed the BLP Prod as this was created too long ago for that to be applicable. As the regular PROD has been removed, AfD is now the only course of action. --Michig (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an entirely unsourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 8 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wishing Tree (2016)[edit]

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

Unreleased film. Subject clearly fails WP:NFILMS. Additionally, extremely heavy WP:COI and promotional behavior. PROD declined by an SPA using a deceptive edit summary. Safiel (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable at this time for stand alone article; reads like a production information sheet; planned release is not until December. Kierzek (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft. Coverage here. Given those involved it seems very likely that there will be more coverage nearer its release. --Michig (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion: Kalpvriksh The Wishing Tree (2016), Manika Sharma and Raajaysh Chetwal.[edit]

Speedy Delete :* IMDB and Twitter database entries don't establish notability. Notability is not inherited by being related to notable people or working alongside notable people. I'm not seeing non-trivial reliable source coverage for Article (Old name: Kalpvriksh and now new name: The Wishing Tree (2016), Manika Sharma and Raajaysh Chetwal. The best hope for notability appears to be WP:CREATIVE. What reliable sources have commented on this award-winning filmmaker's work and film? To be noted same articles deleted in the past also. AdolfDsouza (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Michig: *Speedy Delete : Be careful, This is an old film named "Kalpvriksh. They couldn't sold since 2008, so they are trying all kind of gimmicks and promotional tactics to sell this with new name The Wishing Tree (2016), Please do see these proof since 2008: Please do click on these links:

2008: http://kalpvriksh-manika-sharma.blogspot.in/2008/07/kalpvriksh-manika-sharma.html
2008: http://kalpvriksh-mylifeline.blogspot.in/
2010: http://raajaysh-chetwal.blogspot.in/
2011: http://www.washingtonbanglaradio.com/content/32266611-wish-tree-kalpvriksh-hindi-2011
2012: http://boxofficeindia.co.in/kalpvriksh-4/
2013: http://www.gomolo.com/kalpvriksh-movie/21949
2014: http://www.moviebuff.com/kalpvriksh#poster-2d867
2015: http://www.cineforest.com/UpcomingMovie/kalpvriksh-movie-4737.html
2015: http://www.ticketnew.com/Kalpvriksh-Movie-Tickets-Online-Booking-Show-Timings/Release-Date/12531
2015: http://www.nettv4u.com/movie-review/hindi/kalpvriksh
2015: http://moviesforum.org/t-18064-7zgy-kalpvriksh

AdolfDsouza (talk) 15:51, 9 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 Miss Hawaii USA. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 22:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Machado[edit]

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

Machado was only Miss Hawaii USA for a week, but because she was canned because she was older than the then allowed age, it does not create notability for her. This incident might be worth explaining in an article on Miss Hawaii USA but does not merit a stand alone article. Machado also appeared in a TV show that was cancelled after two weeks. That is no where near enough to make her notable as an actress. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Hawaii USA Definitely not notable enough for a separate article. Subjects best known for winning a state level pageant are not inherently notable. I would prefer a redirect to Miss Hawaii USA instead of outright deletion as a mention is already present on the target page (in the list of winners). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Hawaii USA; valid search term and the subject is listed there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 11 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 Speedied as an article previously deleted per a deletion discussion. Echoeboard has repeatedly removed the speedy tag. See also [1], a smoking gun as far as Echoeboard is concerned. Salting. Bishonen | talk 21:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn ODG[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons that Taketa provided in the previous AfD – references are all non-RS blogs or the artist's website, fails WP:MUSICBIO. About half of the references provided were written by the same person, Asumadu, who is not just a fellow Ghanian rapper but also describes himself as a "Wikipedian, Publicist and Blogger". This is just promotional material with little substance. Richard3120 (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician, does not pass WP:GNG with the quality of sources.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep This Article Has has been been reviewed for several times and have been seen to meet wikipedia Standards.Freshprince09 (talk) 07:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep You Wrongly tagging this Article for Deletion is has usefull content that passes WP:GNG Echoeboard (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)— Echoeboard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy KeepDawn ODG is very notable in Ghana Music right now ,he's dropping his album next week and that will even upgrade his standards in the international market41.215.169.76 (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC) — 41.215.169.76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy Delete This article should have been nominated for speedy deletion. The current version looks identical to the previous versions. The subject is not notable and will never be. I think there's some sock-puppetry going on here. I am suspecting User:41.215.169.76 , User talk:Freshprince09, and User talk:Echoeboard as sock accounts of one another. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Echoeboard News is mentioned within the article. If not a sock then there is certainly WP:COI issues.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There definitely is COI, see this. Echoeboard is a Dawn ODG project/campaign sponsor. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ This rapper just was mentioned in the new gain recognition form American rapper Joey B who recently featured Joe budden [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echoeboard (talk • contribs) 17:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate !vote struck. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Echoeboard, you have just deleted this AfD from the two deletion discussion listings above as well (added by JJMC89), which you are not allowed to do until the discussion is complete. Richard3120 (talk) 19:16, 6 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 Miss Hawaii USA. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 22:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Fairbank[edit]

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

Fairbank's only claim to fame is she won Miss Hawaii USA one year. Winning a state beauty pageant alone is not enough to make someone notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Hawaii USA Definitely not notable enough for a separate article. Subjects best known for winning a state level pageant are not inherently notable. I would prefer a redirect to Miss Hawaii USA instead of outright deletion as a mention is already present on the target page (in the list of winners).--Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- lacks sources, although I found a mention here. Is there any material worth redirecting to Miss Hawaii USA?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer a redirect (not a merge) because she was the winner of Miss Hawaii USA and the target article has a list of winners. I would say this is preferable to deletion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose a redirect could be okay.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Hawaii USA; valid search term and the subject is listed there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per NA1000, who is on it. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 11 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 02:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Act I: Eternal Sunshine (The Pledge)[edit]

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

unreferenced. not notable Rathfelder (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article for the second (still unreleased) album by this artist, Act II: Patents of Nobility (The Turn), is also up for deletion, and I noted in that discussion that it had been redirected four times to Jay Electronica and reverted each time – this article has also been redirected and restored twice in its history, so someone is watching these articles and restoring them without providing a reason. Jay Electronica himself is notable with plenty of articles out there (the July 2010 issue of Spin, for example). But this is a 15-minute mixtape originally distributed via his MySpace website (and now available on Tidal) – the very fact that its release was so underground and low-key makes it hard to find reliable sources about the album itself. I'd suggest another redirect to Jay Electronica's article, but we'd have to watch out for it being reverted once again. Richard3120 (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - I found a source for one claim, but there are no reviews, and most people writing about the artist don't even realize he has any stuff. Source aside, this doesn't meet WP:NALBUM. As for other issues, the redirect reversion is a problem, and barring locking the redirect page (which I'm trying to ascertain the feasability of), I don't know how else to avoid the problem besides the one I'm offering. MSJapan (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt I seriously do not see how this album is even remotely notable per WP:NALBUM. I personally would have considered a redirect here, but seeing how the redirect has been constantly reverted, I am going with a delete and salt. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Lacks significant coverage to satisfy WP:NALBUM/WP:GNG. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:40, 10 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 02:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clayborne Family[edit]

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

Unreferenced track list. No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources, this non-notable. Meatsgains (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of charting or even reviews. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 8 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 Shaquille O'Neal. czar 07:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Toney[edit]

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

Toney is only mentioned in the context of his notable son Shaquille O' Neal. Take away his relationship (or lack thereof) with his son then we have an individual who briefly played college basketball. Notability is not inherited so this should be an easy decision for voters. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shaquille O'Neal, which mentions Toney. This is often done with non-notable athletes who are related to notable ones - see Luke Wakamatsu, Ryan Fitzgerald (ice hockey), etc. The last one was just subject to AfD with the result of redirecting it to his notable father's article. Smartyllama (talk) 19:31, 2 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 15:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. TimothyJosephWood 17:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shaquille O'Neal per WP:NOTINHERITED. Most of his coverage is in relation to his son. WP:INVALIDBIO suggests that a redirect is suitable for these cases.—Bagumba (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shaquille O'Neal as suggested. Subject does not meet GNG in his own right. Rikster2 (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shaq since he does not have independent notability but is a plausible search term. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:20, 6 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. czar 07:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 in Bollywood film[edit]

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

We already have a List of Bollywood films of 2016 and List of highest-grossing Indian films. Secondly, all the references in the article seem to be misleading. - Managerarc™^talk 21:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Bollywood films of 2016. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing in here that isn't already covered in List of Bollywood films of 2016. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary duplicate article. Cavarrone 05:40, 5 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. Unnecessary to leave open any longer. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Kumar K[edit]

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

not notable Kabahaly (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep minutes after it was nominated for deletion, the creator added enough newspaper cites to indicate that he clearly meets GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even perhaps speedily given the lack of detail in the deletion rationale. The coverage already cited in the article is adequate to establish notability, and there's more out there, e.g. [3], and that's just the English language coverage. Note that he is generally credited as 'K. Hari Kumar' or 'K Hari Kumar', so the article should probably be renamed. --Michig (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Trying to delete articles without giving their creators a decent opportunity to finish their work is atrocious, abusive, and far too often protected by a cadre of editors which aren't really interested in building an encyclopedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:25, 8 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 Move to draft. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odsonne Édouard[edit]

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined on the grounds that article is very different with many more references and more claims of importance. However, the underlying notability concerns remain. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article still doe not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page was previously deleted because Odsonne Édouard didn't own any professional experience to his name. Since then, he has signed a professional contract with Paris Saint-Germain. Moreover, Édouard has joined their first-team squad for the pre-season and 2016 International Champions Cup.

Has also received significant coverage by the media: Le Parisien – Odsonne Edouard, la nouvelle pépite du PSG sur le départ?, Metro – Manchester United ready to make transfer move for Odsonne Edouard – report, theScore – Paris Saint-Germain teenager Odsonne Edouard signs senior deal, sportskeeda – Paris Saint-Germain hands teen star Odsonne Edouard his first professional contract, ESPN – Odsonne Edouard signs professional contract with Paris Saint-Germain and L'Equipe – Odsonne Edouard bientôt pro... au PSG (just to mention a few). Hurrygane (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Hurrygane (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

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. SOurces above are merely routine transfer / contract talk. Hundreds of these sorts of small articles are produced during the close season for all sorts of young players signing contracts. The bottom line is this is a player who has never actually played football at a notable level, signing a contract indicates he might, but nothing more. Multiple reports of the same contract being signed do not amount to GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I declined speedy delete, as the new article was different to the old with different references; the current references are either connected ie uefa, or only have a passing mention (just the name). So at this point notability is not yet proven. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:08, 1 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 15:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or move to Draft. Seriously, he's one appearance away from meeting the football guideline, and arguably passes WP:GNG already. It could be argued that if he never played another game he wouldn't merit an article, in which case keeping as a draft until he makes his pro debut would be the best approach. This has been deleted and recreated once - this doesn't justify salting even if deleted this time. --Michig (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep arguments based on speculation as to future appearances have been consistently rejected in the past (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Bennett II and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baoringdao Bodo for recent examples) as these claims are inherently unverifiable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the only argument for keeping you'd have a point, but if GNG is satisfied, the number of games played is irrelevant. --Michig (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but general notability is not met here either. As pointed out by several editors above, what coverage there is, is not significant. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Édouard has already debuted AND scored for PSG at the International Champions Cup. What else can you ask for? However, this feat also increased his general notability. Hurrygane (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The International Champions Cup is a privately organised friendly competition. Despite its grandiose name it is of no significance really. NFOOTY requires players to have played in competitive games. Fenix down (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. Don't see why the article should be deleted completely because he's probably going to be making his competitive debut with Toulouse in the next couple of weeks. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 19:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft Fails WP:NFOOTBALL at the moment, having never played in a fully professional league, but likely to pass it in the coming weeks. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:32, 10 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 Al-Futtaim Group. MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plug Ins[edit]

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

Frankly I would've PRODed but either it may be removed or this may be restarted later so AfD is likely best; my searches simply found a few links at News and searching at GulfNews and Khaleej Times also found nothing convincingly better (only 2 passing mentions at the former) and also the listed links here are also simply trivial and mentions....and that's not surprising considering it's simply a localized company. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable outside possible local interest; trivial information. Kierzek (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect to Al-Futtaim Group. Not notable on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 7 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Faulkner[edit]

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

The subject of the article has requested deletion in the page history. I think if there isn't clear consensus to keep, we should respect his wishes per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Sro23 (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a low-level hockey player, no reason to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Doesn't meet NHOCKEY, no need to disrespect his request to delete. Rlendog (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

changed to Keep - DJSasso and Ravenswing are correct. He does meet WP:NHOCKEY #4 for being an British League 1st team all star. If we get a deletion request from the subject per proper procecdure I'd be inclined to honor the request though, since his notability is rather marginal. Rlendog (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS signs off on it, I wouldn't oppose. Ravenswing 19:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ATHLETE. Quis separabit? 20:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete regardless of any requests, the subject's lack of notability is a sufficient cause for deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sorry to demur, but the subject does meet NHOCKEY; he was a first-team all-star in the British league, and led the Italian league in goals in another season, which fulfills criterion #4; it's probable that sources meeting the GNG exist from both. I am entirely unimpressed with a deletion request from a "Faulk11," a SPA who is not the article creator and has neither presented bonafides nor went through the OTRS process. Ravenswing 16:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ravenswing is correct, he does actually meet NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ravenswing, as he actually does pass Criteria #4 of WP:NHOCKEY. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:23, 11 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 02:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Levis Ryan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:BLPNOTE Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable YouTube personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: promotional page for "non-notable YouTube personality" as @John Pack Lambert has concisely put it. Quis separabit? 19:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- insufficient RS to establish notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this is actually convincing and there's no convincing substance, this is better suited for Facebook....not here. SwisterTwister talk 03:09, 9 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 deleted per WP:BLPPROD. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Parpworth[edit]

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

Going by the creator's name, there is a WP:COI... The problem as always is notability.

GScholar claims 52 cites for the book (Constitutional & Administrative Law) - this being said, 2016 is the 9th edition of the book, so one would assume it sells reasonably well. All in all, I still think it is too little for WP:PROF. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:BLPPROD and complete failure of WP:GNG. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modified to Speedy per WP:A7, WP:A11, and WP:G11, and I've tagged as such. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SanAnMan, CSD are supposed to be applied restrictively. A11 is plain wrong since the guy and his book exist, G11 is not even close (no fundamental rewrite needed to be encyclopedic) and A7 is (at best) a gray area. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have declined speedy deletion per User:Tigraan comments above. No prejudice to deletion through AFD or BLPPROD. Jujutacular (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A GS h-index of 4 is totally insufficient to pass WP:Prof. No case for WP:GNG either. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as still nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A h index is a useless measure for textbooks-- or indeed, for any book at all. He qualifies for WP:PROF for being the editor of a standard textbook. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification: are you referring to WP:NACADEMIC #4? Because then we would need a source saying the textbook is "standard", i.e. "has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." I did not find such a source, even if - as my nom states - there is circumstancial evidence that the book is somewhat known.

I agree the citation metrics of an educational book are not a good measure of its educational value, but none of their other scholarly work comes even close, and the h-index does give some measure of the person's reputation among researchers; I do not see a claim based on research activities here. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:41, 1 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 14:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: wholly non-notable subject. Quis separabit? 19:59, 5 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 02:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sonu S. Ahluwalia[edit]

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

Non-Notable medical professional Uncletomwood (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 2 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 14:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an advertorial for non notable (yet) doctor. Optionally redirect to Cedars Sinai Medical Center as he's a chief of department there. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non-notable for stand alone article; maybe some day but not at this time. Kierzek (talk) 00:21, 8 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 Komala_Party_of_Iranian_Kurdistan. MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gordan-i Shwan[edit]

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

Fails to demonstrate Wikipedia:Notability. Pahlevun (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect to Komala_Party_of_Iranian_Kurdistan. This is a NN troup or military cohort. Bearian (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no sources. Searching found no sources. Delete because it both can't be verified (there are no sources) and it's not notable (there are no sources) If the content could be verified then delete per WP:MILUNIT Gab4gab (talk) 19:09, 2 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 13:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a "unit" which has shown to have obtained and retained notability and no RS sources. Kierzek (talk) 16:41, 7 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. czar 07:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Mohsin Nawaz[edit]

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

Delete. Fails GNG. Award mentioned is also non-notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only does he fail GNG, there's absolutely no assertion of notability in the article whatsoever. MSJapan (talk) 17:46, 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 13:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and doesn't pass by WP:ENT either. This is also an undisclosed paid editing article and the author User:Aliahmadawan is a confirmed sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Awais_Azad/Archive. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:54, 4 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 Youth system. czar 07:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Youth team level[edit]

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

Not notable definition Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect / WP:A10 - same subject as existing article Youth system. --McGeddon (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Agree with above, redirect to Youth system. Meatsgains (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Youth system. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 15:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. ^Avic _ennasis @ 17:02, 1 Av 5776 / 17:02, 5 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shut Up – The Footy's On The Radio[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added some content. Subject reviewed in national media. Played on national youth radio. Passes WP:BAND#1&11.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seeing as it won a national competition, and was played on a national outlet i would say it meets WP:BAND #11 as stated above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:43, 6 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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Beasts of Suburban[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 03:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for "Get Thee to a Nunnery" (a track on this EP): nominated for an ARIA Award, controversially describes a TV presenter; and for "Morningtown Ride" (another track) listed as one of ten best songs about Melbourne. Passess WP:ALBUM#1, 6.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Shaidar cuebiyar's comments. Dan arndt (talk) 13:45, 7 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australia the Lucky Cunt[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TISM, the band's article. The record is known for being controversial, and that controversy is covered in the band's article. Ca2james (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was so well known for being controversial that it was described in numerous reliable sources both for the Ken Done legal action and for its title. After the band's demise more media described this EP.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shaidar - David Gerard (talk) 10:46, 5 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. Not a lot of participation, but it's already been listed once, and the only person arguing to keep is the article's creator, who fails to cite any policy-based reasons to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gods Of War Motorcycle Club[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline and the guidelines at WP:CLUB. The Gods Of War Motorcycle Club has not been the subject of any significant coverage in any independent, reliable sources. Besides no hits at all at Google news and books, there is nothing at Questia, HighBeam or General OneFile.

To help the article creator User:JamesT5723 understand better, and to answer issues he raised on the talk page and in edit summaries, it should be explained that having a registered trademark is in no way evidence of notability by Wikipedia's standards. Anyone can pay a fee and register a trademark.

Claims that this is one of the fastest growing clubs, is unique in its policies, or unique in other ways, only serve to make one ask why hasn't a single book, newspaper, magazine or reputable website ever written anything about this club?

It is true that there are other articles of questionable notability. Combat Veterans Motorcycle Association would probably not survive a deletion nomination, since all the coverage is WP:ROUTINE toy runs and charity events. The article Blue Angels Motorcycle Club isn't much, but the club has been the subject of ongoing press coverage for many years, mostly due to criminal activity (which is nothing to envy if you ask me). But what matters here is that other stuff exists is no help in keeping Gods Of War Motorcycle Club from being deleted. Regardless of what is wrong with some other article, the question here is whether this article meets the guidelines for notability. For that we need citations showing significant coverage, which are not published by the club, or available for purchase like a license, a trademark, or a vanity press book. Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mention that we are not in the papers, books etc.. well this is beciuase we are not breaking the law, & as far as I am aware.. there are people & organisations who are listed that obey the law. I had mentioned the Blue Angels, & you said "but the club has been the subject of ongoing press coverage for many years", as I pointed out.. none of the reference links etc attributed to them actually indicate this. Same can be said for Shanon Ponton, who is a trainer on the biggest loser, & all his links bar 1 fail, other than having been on personal trainer on a TV program.. what worth of notability is it. & I am not advocating that either of htese be removed, becuase even though our listing has more actual VALID links listed on our page, their is obviously thousnads of people that would find their links notworthy, where 100's might not. As for the trade mark, you actually have to go through a long process, so it's not just pay & you're done. You said "Claims that this is one of the fastest growing clubs, is unique in its policies, or unique in other ways, only serve to make one ask why hasn't a single book, newspaper, magazine or reputable website ever written anything about this club".. this is not a claim but a fact & the fact we now have locations across 3 countries in 18 monthes proves that, if you do some research you will not find another Military MC that is not 1%, not controlled by one, that admits all service personnel only, from any country, male or female.. & caters for disabled veterans that are unable to ride any more.. That makes us Unique. Just becuase we don't go blowing our trumpet doesn't mean that we are not known, or we wouldn't be getting the amount of applications each day we get. We ARE listed on a reputable web site & the link is on as a reference, it is an extremely highly regarded website in the Motorcycle community, & the site is the main registry for clubs & is respected the world round, & we have been listed 3 times on it!! Claims of notability are subject to personal view, & as I agree that criminal activity isn't something to envy, you seem to advocate that unless a club does something wrong then then are not notworthy, the club has a very good reputation, & is also able to remain netural in around outlaw club, which in its self is it notable.. what one person may not class & notworthy may be to hundred of thousands of others. we get dozens of applcations each day from around the world & have approved yet another location only yesterday in Rowley Regis UK, so it we were certainly notworthy for enough people to wish to establish there. User:JamesT5723 23:47, 28 July 2016

Hi James, please read our guidelines for notability, particularly the part about clubs that Dennis linked. Clubs (including MCs) don't need to commit crimes to be covered by the news. If you can find coverage of your club's participation in a major event, that could help to establish some for of notability. Has the MC led any charity events or protests? Those would be a good place to start. For now, though, I'm voting Delete. Jergling (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no coverage in RS can be found; non-notable subject & fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that there are many pages, MC & general, that I had mentioned which fail to meet your guidelines but are active, & have LESS refernces & notations that us... Just because we go about our unique way of doing things without a parade & fanfair does not make us un-notworthy!! Either way I am not going to argue the point one way or the other, my vote if it's worth anything is to Keep. User:JamesT5723 17:26, 1 August 2016

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesT5723: Your !vote carries no weight unfortunately.. Please have a look at this. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 13:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 13 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Blocks[edit]

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

A web startup. With a cloud-based product. We're knee-deep in these things and it's hard to see why this one is notable for either technical innovation nor corporate significance. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete spam. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is not significantly notable. Just another cloud-based company with little coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability. Google translate shows that the alkmaarcentraal.nl article is just an announcement that betty blocks staff volunteered for a cleanup project. The Gartner report is inaccessable (and $1200), but on its own insufficient to establish notability. A search turned up no additional significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- insufficient coverage to establish notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:34, 7 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 02:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alparslan Kuytul[edit]

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

Created by the content translation tool. Poorly sourced. Notable? Black Kite (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article does not reach threshold for notability in my opinion. Quis separabit? 20:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I understand, he gives lectures but it stays unclear about what. The rest of the article is unsourced promo. The Banner talk 14:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible info on internet. The article is disputed in Turkish Wikipedia too. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 18:36, 7 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 02:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RAD Software[edit]

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

I just declined a speedy deletion nomination as sources supporting notability are not needed to avoid WP:A7, but I've just reviewed the sources and they're seriously wanting. A lot of them are dead links, but of those that are active we have...

The company's own site.
A Highbeam link that I can't read beyond the opening (https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-61207845.html), but it looks like it's just a press release - hopefully someone with Highbeam access can confirm or refute.
An article in The Scotsman (http://www.scotsman.com/business/companies/radical-approach-to-finding-the-right-it-system-1-528332) which reads like PR material.

And that's it - using Google, I can't find any reliable independent coverage to support notability. All I can find are primary sources and lots of hits on the generic terminology. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Echoing the nominator's rationale, I cannot find any reliable, third-party sources for this company. It also stinks of a COI; it was written by an editor whose only contributions were to this article (and all but one in the span of five minutes) nearly five years ago, it reads like a promotion piece, virtually of the content is either listing the company's products or its clients, and it references primary sources and dead links. Thanks, - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 11:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. TimothyJosephWood 13:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PR piece (who else talks about 'business verticals'?) about a software retailer. Looks like a directory entry, plugging their stock range. Peridon (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasons at Talk:RAD_Software#This_article.27s_sources_are_garbage.2C_probably_promotional. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I hadn't spotted that - nice review of the sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non-notable corporation. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with other thoughts on being non-notable and full of PR material Callsignpink (talk) 20:10, 6 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incontinent in Ten Continents[edit]

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

Does not satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NasssaNser 09:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot seem to find a single source, present or contemporary, which states anything about this video. There are a couple of fan sites with a little bit about it, but no reliable sources. Unless someone else can find something, this seems like a clear deletion. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 11:39, 4 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 02:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hirdesh bhardwaj[edit]

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

An author who has published his own book on PHP. No evidence of any notability, the refs are advertisements for his book plus his own web-site. Fails WP:GNG by a long way. Could possibly have been a speedy delete. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note a previous version of the same article was deleted by JamesBWatson here

Delete - This looks a lot like a promo piece. The author is a new account whose only contributions have been to this article and defending it from deletion. It lists his various public profiles and is full of links to his works. There are no sources listed. The content consists of basically a resume for the subject. The only sources I can find for the subject are his own public profiles. Also, two additional new editors have made small additions to the article, the only content that they have contributed as well. This looks like Sock puppetry. Thanks, - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 11:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article appears to have been created as promo by subject himself or a friend; notability is a joke. Quis separabit? 20:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotional article and the subject lacks notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article reads purely promotional tone and also lacks notability as per nominator and previous reviewers. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 15:22, 7 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krissy Lynn[edit]

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

Non-notable porn star that had been deleted previously by a PROD but recreated by a user who went on binge of creating several articles for non-notable porn stars. Award win is for a scene so therefore doesn't meet PORNBIO standards. No reliable sources to meet the GNG either. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails PORNBIO and GNG. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No actual claim of notability. No reliable sourcing for biographical content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only a scene-related award. Fails GNG without significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Coverage by porn trade press appears to be limited to press releases. • Gene93k (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 12:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: The editor who recreated this article also reposted it at Draft:Krissy Lynn. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no where near even meeting our very minimum standards for notability of pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delte - sourcing does not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delte. Scene award not sufficient to pass PORNBIO. Finnegas (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 11 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. Apart from the nominator, there is a consensus here that Dunn is more notable than your average diplomat, given the nature of the coverage and her longer than usual career. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Dunn (diplomat)[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable. All this has is primary sources of government press releases. Consensus has shown for ambassadors to be notable they need third party coverage of their achievements and contributions to diplomacy LibStar (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Important enough nations on the world stage whose interchange is on a high level as to render the ambassador notable via her position,Masterknighted (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. at least 50 have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ambassador from a leading country to three other countries. We have tended to keep if they have had just two posts. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

absolutely not true. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I note that LibStar has not notified the article creator as required by AfD rules. 115.166.4.231 (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it is not required. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, it is not required, but the AfD guidelines recommend placing a courtesy notification. Why would you choose not to do so? Altamel (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

again there is no requirement, are you now going to ask everyone else that hasn't done it. LibStar (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Bearian. A sweep of Australian news shows many sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't qualify as in depth coverage. Almost all of that coverage is not about her as the subject but almost all as making statements as a spokesperson for the Australian government especially on Flight MH17. Coverage needs to cover her biographical details, career history , education etc. LibStar (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dunn is in the middle of many important international stories, playing an important role such as helping Australians flee Lebanon, which is why there are so many news items. If interested in her education & bio details, check here or here. She's even in a book--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Further, she's been recognized by her own government as playing an important role in foreign affairs.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:27, 8 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 19:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Scott (sheriff)[edit]

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

Fails NPOLITICIAN. Only widespread coverage is BLP1E John from Idegon (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In it's present form, there isn't a lot and the article does need improvement, but his notability goes beyond 1E. Mainly local coverage exists, but there's a significant amount of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scope and breadth of coverage from reliable and verifiable sources meets the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:POLITICIAN criterion #2. VQuakr (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only acceptable, reliable sourcing relates to the BLP1E incident involving Scott's dog-whistling against Barack Obama. Clear delete case. AusLondonder (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County sheriff is not an office that confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing. Local media would be expected to offer coverage of local law enforcement officials, so purely WP:ROUTINE local coverage does not help get him over WP:GNG by itself — and there isn't even much local coverage shown, as the referencing here is almost entirely to primary sources. At this level of office, the coverage has to nationalize to make him suitable for inclusion, but no evidence of nationalized coverage has been shown here at all — what little RS coverage has been cited here doesn't actually extend any further than the next county over from his own, and the incident described by it does make him a WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon, AusLondonder, and Bearcat: can you clarify why you think the subject meets WP:BLP1E? To me he pretty clearly do not meet either condition #1 (reliable sources, local or otherwise, have indeed covered Scott in contexts other than the 2008 election) or #2 (he is not a low-profile individual as he was elected to public office and voluntarily spoke at a rally). VQuakr (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say that reliable sources covered him in contexts other than the 2008 election, but no such coverage has been shown — as written, this article is based almost entirely on primary sources, like the web pages of the sheriff's office and raw tables of election results, and what little media coverage is actually present in the article is stacked entirely onto the "Barack Hussain Obama" comment itself with no evidence of any other coverage provided. It's not enough to assert that other coverage exists; hard evidence that such coverage exists has to be explicitly shown (preferably in the article itself, but some results being shown in this discussion would also be acceptable). And being elected to public office does not automatically equal "high profile", either — because the office he was elected to is a local one which does not pass WP:NPOL, and doesn't inherently make him known or "famous" anywhere beyond his own local area. But again, GNG is not passed because one person says the level of coverage needed to pass GNG exists; it's passed when the level of coverage needed to pass it has been physically demonstrated to exist. Bearcat (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are claiming that there has been no coverage of the subject since 2008, then please review WP:BEFORE. Otherwise; WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Here is a link filtered for just the last year; Scott has managed to stay in the news quite consistently over the years. VQuakr (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I see in that search is (a) local coverage which fails to demonstrate that he's known beyond his local area (read what I said above about coverage of people at this level of office having to nationalize before they become suitable for inclusion in an international encyclopedia), (b) glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that aren't substantively enough about him to count toward meeting GNG at all, and (c) entirely coincidental mentions of other Mike Scotts who are not this Mike Scott, which merely happen to coexist in the same article as an entirely unrelated occurrence of the word "sheriff" (see, frex, "Discovery's 'Killing Fields' returning to Louisiana for new season", which is about a sheriff in Louisiana, and was written by a journalist named Mike Scott.) None of that constitutes strong evidence that GNG has been met — again, locally prominent does not automatically equal encyclopedic. A figure of purely local notability gets into Wikipedia if the coverage expands beyond the purely local, and not if the expected level of WP:ROUTINE local coverage is all there really is. Bearcat (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 07:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't get over the bar for GNG -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOL doesn't apply in this case. We have to go by GNG and over here clearly the sources are lacking. We generally do not consider local sources for GNG purposes - specifically because local sources tend to disproportionately cover local issues which may not be notable. Over here the coverage is local and most of it is routine coverage - the kind you will expect a law enforcement officer to have because they are involved with investigating crimes. There is nothing over here which shows that the person is anything other than a routine law enforcement officer. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What article were you reading? Aside from being the head of one of the state's largest agencies (more than a "routine" officer) I see sources about him that have nothing to do with investigating anything. Did you actually read the sources? And when did we start disregarding local sources? GNG doesn't say significant coverage by non-local sources. The last article I added as a source is entirely about him in a reliable source. Where are all you "we don't consider local sources" editors when I nominate some garage band? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the ones in the News-press which is a local newspaper. From what I have seen in other countries (for example, India which is one of the larger countries), a head of a state level police force maybe notable but the head of a district level is not considered as notable. If I am not wrong, county in the US is similar to district in India. I have consistently maintained that local sources should not be used for GNG purposes for the reasons I stated above. The only non-local sources about the subject mention him in context of a particular remark made about Obama's middle name - a pretty insignificant event which faded away and wasn't even given much coverage at that time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about others, but I have consistently maintained my view on local sources at other AfDs as well (See 1 and 2 for example) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the News-Press is a local paper, but it's a large daily, part of Gannett Company and undoubtedly a reliable source. I'm not asserting that he is notable solely by virtue of the office he holds. I simply pointed out that your statement of being a "routine" officer is hardly accurate. He heads about 1,600 employees, one of the largest employers in the area, and one of the largest agencies in the state. That's not "routine". Niteshift36 (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The number of employees that a person happens to be the boss of is not a notability criterion, and neither is the organization's ranking in a "largest local employers" list. It's reliable source coverage about him, demonstrating a substantive reason why he can be considered more than just locally notable, or bust. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: do you honestly think I argued that number of employees or largest local employer were indicators of notability? Seriously? I was replying to the specific statement that Lemongirl made about his being a "routine officer". I even quoted her use of the word. A little good faith that I have actually figured out the basics of GNG in the past 9 years would be nice. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per VQuakr, POLITICIAN Criteria # 2. The national uproar certainly made him a national figure. Also, we have kept articles for larger sheriff's offices; part of what makes a local official notable from our view is the size of the office he or she manages. Bearian (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The national uproar made him a WP:BLP1E, not a topic of permanent encyclopedic interest that anybody would still be looking for 10 years after the 1E was forgotten. And keeping articles about sheriff's offices which satisfy WP:ORG has no bearing on whether we can keep BLPs of the people. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, the subject does not meet criteria #1 and #2 of BLP1E. All three need to be met for it for that section to apply. VQuakr (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The expected local coverage of a local figure does not count toward GNG, if the subject doesn't already have an automatic pass of an SNG. Only the nationalized coverage counts toward whether he passes or fails BLP1E #1 — and the nationalized coverage exists only in the context of the Obama comments, which means the GNG-eligible coverage does exist only in the context of a single event. And local figures do not escape #2, either: if his profile isn't nationalized in any substantive way, then he's still a low-profile figure regardless of the fact that he may have a higher profile in one small local area. "Low-profile" is a question of how nationally known a person is or isn't, and a person is not exempt from it just because he's locally higher-profile than he is anywhere else. My aunt has a local profile in her own town, but that doesn't make her a high-profile figure at the national level or a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet local coverage is enough to keep an article about a hot dog place. Not a single source from more than a 40 mile radius. If we were talking about some local, free weekly paper, that might be one thing, but we're not. The sources are legit and part of larger syndicates. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one argued the on point arguement in that 5 year old discussion. It miserably fails WP:CORP. That predates my time here; possibly CORP did not exist then. Besides WP:OTHERCRAP is seldom a persuasive arguement and comparing an article about a business to a BLP is apples and oranges. John from Idegon (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow John, you miss the point as badly as Bearcat does. I'm not comparing the 2. The point was that some editors here are acting like "local coverage" is useless and can't establish notability. I presented an example of where the AfD was a keep, based on nothing but local coverage, disproving the notion that local coverage can't result in a keep. BTW, just for giggles, I added CBS News and NPR sources so that you can all stop claiming there's only local sources used in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: The expected local coverage of a local figure does not count toward GNG... no, that's not what either BLP1E or GNG says. If his profile isn't nationalized in any substantive way... that's not what "low profile" means. The term, as applied on WP, is defined in an essay linked from the policy. Sought media attention? Check. Holds a position of power? Check. Has "always avoided" high-profile activity? Definitely not. You are making up your own guideline content, which is a poor basis for an AfD !vote. VQuakr (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not making anything up. It's standard policy and procedure on Wikipedia that purely local coverage is not enough to establish notability for a person of purely local prominence. There's not a single sheriff anywhere in the entire United States (or a single sheriff-equivalent in any country on the entire planet, either) who would fail to qualify for a Wikipedia article if local coverage were enough; there's not a single city or town councillor or school board trustee anywhere on the entire planet who would fail to qualify for a Wikipedia article if local coverage were enough. Local shop owners and restaurateurs and parent-teacher association presidents and church bake sale committee spokespeople would start qualifying for articles if local coverage were enough. And on, and so forth: local media frequently devote coverage time and resources to profiling local people who may be of local interest, but do not belong in an encyclopedia. So if you're trying to get a person over GNG on "because media coverage of him exists" grounds, because he doesn't have any valid claim to passing any SNG, then the media coverage most certainly does have to be more than purely local, and the "highness" of his profile most assuredly does have to expand beyond the purely local, to count toward passing GNG. Bearcat (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man; coverage of this person has already been demonstrated to not be exclusively local in nature. "highness" of his profile is again your own terminology with no basis in policy. VQuakr (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not a strawman: the only nationalized coverage that exists of this person stacks entirely onto a single blip of coverage deriving from a single incident, with no non-local coverage of him existing anywhere outside of that one isolated incident — thus fully satisfying WP:BLP1E. And again, I am making nothing up in this discussion: a "high profile", for the purposes of satisfying GNG or escaping BLP1E, does require that profile to be more than purely local. Every sheriff or sheriff-equivalent in existence has a high profile in his own local area, and every mayor and every city councillor and every school trustee in existence has a high profile in their own local area — but sheriffs and mayors and city councillors and school trustees do not qualify for Wikipedia articles until they can be demonstrated as more notable than the norm for their role, until there's a substantive reason why their profile and notability and sourceability can be substantively demonstrated as nationalizing, in a sustained manner, for much more than just a two-day attack of Dude Said Something Dumb. Bearcat (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't think "purely local coverage" and "nationalized coverage" are mutually exclusive? "Local" and "reliable" are both descriptors of sources that can be relevant to deletion discussions, but they are not synonyms. BLP1E says nothing about local coverage; your repeated claims to the contrary do not change the content of the policy. VQuakr (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I have to try this in different words: only nationalized coverage counts toward whether somebody at this level of significance qualifies as notable or not, and only nationalized coverage counts toward whether he can be deemed "high-profile" or not. If nationalized coverage of him exists only in the context of a single, minor, incident that fails the ten-year test, then he is still a WP:BLP1E regardless of how much localized coverage may also exist, because the local coverage isn't contributing any notability. All sheriffs or sheriff-equivalents in the world are locally "high-profile", but not all sheriffs or sheriff-equivalents in the world are notable enough for encyclopedia articles — a sheriff or sheriff-equivalent's profile has to expand considerably beyond the purely local for that person to warrant a Wikipedia article. But that hasn't happened here, as a two-day blip of coverage for a single event doesn't demonstrate that. Bearcat (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think word choice is the issue. You are very clear that you think locality of sources should be mentioned alongside reliability in BLP1E criterion #1, but it quite verifiably isn't. Yours is a defensible opinion, but you should propose a change to the policy rather than attempting to pass off your opinion as policy here first. We are not discussing "All sheriffs or sheriff-equivalents in the world"; straw man. Anyways, among things to reach an impasse on this is a pretty good choice; kind regards. VQuakr (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not expressing a personal opinion of any sort; a lot of past AFDs, many of which I did not participate in at all, have decided that this is the way GNG and BLP1E work in a situation like this. And "all sheriffs or sheriff-equivalents in the world" are not a straw man or an irrelevant tangent, either — because all sheriffs or sheriff-equivalents in the world could always make the exact same claims of being locally high profile, and locally sourceable enough to satisfy GNG, that you're claiming for this one. But sheriffs are a class of topic that are not automatically notable because they exist; they're a class of topic where "more notable than the norm for a county sheriff" is the condition that has to be met for one to qualify for inclusion here, and nothing written or sourced here demonstrates that this one passes that test. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. even the 2008 event is rivial. Theextent to which we use local sources for showing notability of a local person is a matter of judgment. The recent trend, which I fully support is to be very cautious about usingthem because they are considerably indiscriminate. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources which demonstrate any notability. All the sources listed in the article are either first-party, or local news outlets with routine coverage. The only non-local media I see is the CBS news bit, and that's both a trivial mention, and subject to WP:BLP1E -- RoySmith (talk) 11:15, 14 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 Phantom cat. Almost nobody wants to keep, but editors need to figure out how much, if anything, they want to merge from history. Sandstein 20:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gippsland phantom cat[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFRINGE and WP:GNG.

Current sources: 2 with broken links[4][5] and 2 that don't mention the subject[6][7]
- Sources suggested recently on talkpage when my PROD was removed: 1 article in a tabloid newspaper[8] and 2 self-published websites[9][10]; 0 RS
Google search: 49 hits; 0 RS
News: 0 hits
Google books (-"books llc" -wikipedia): 3 hits--(1) this passing mention in a novel, (2) Exotic Zoology (1959) that I can't access, and (3) this book whose publisher only has a facebook page.
Google scholar: 2 hits from the same website that's a WP mirror; 0 RS

Searches for the alternative title given in the article, "Gippsland big cat", turn up less results. —PermStrump(talk) 07:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I ran the broken links through web archive and found an archived date for the first one [11], however it doesn't mention our cat but Nannup tiger and Pemberton panther instead. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 07:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Phantom cat. Refs and search results may not be strong enough to satisfy WP:N but are strong enough to satisfy WP:V. ~Kvng (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think verifiability has been established. This particular phantom cat is rarely mentioned in any of the sources discussed. I'm not positive there is a cryptid commonly known as the Gippsland phantom cat. Most (all?) of the sites that mention it by this name are citing WP or mirrors of it. —PermStrump(talk) 14:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Weak Keep: The 'Gippsland phantom cat' title appears to be descriptive rather than common - "Gippsland panther" appears to be used a bit. For WP:V, see this and this, for instance. That said, there's big cat sightings all over, "territories" are a continuum, and there's a lot of regional names. Better would be a single solid article about Australian phantom cats, which are a common enough fringe topic in RS, have had books and book coverage on the topic ([12], [13], [14]), and which have had official action/response in Victoria ([15], [16], [17]) and NSW ([18], [19], [20]). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 15:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not totally opposed to merging, but since this seems to be a descriptive title, I don't quite see the purpose as it's rarely the term actually used to describe the thing. Keeping in mind that I was almost exclusively looking at self-published websites and tabloids, I did see Australian big cats come up enough that I'm open to the small possibility that Australian big cats are notable enough for a section in the main Phantom cat article (which I'm not even convinced merits its own article). Most of these things probably should get redirects to List of cryptids with a 1-2 sentence description and no main article. Because the thing I'm seeing with these regional phantom cats (e.g., see also Blue Mountains panther) is that, if they're even covered in independent reliable sources at all, which most aren't, it's never anything close to in depth coverage, so the only thing to say about them is that there's been speculation about sightings, which isn't encyclopedic per WP:SPECULATION. That's how we end up with a Phantom cat article that is literally a list of sightings of non-existent cats that doesn't give the reader any information about the myth, its origin, where it's popular, etc., and basically treats it like it might be a real thing, because that's the only coverage that exists...people claiming to have seen them and sources repeating people's claims to have seen them. —PermStrump(talk) 04:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I'm not sure it's not a hoax. The section name "Theories and myths" does not instill confidence. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There has been some additional discussion about this article at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Phantom_cat_articles ~Kvng (talk) 13:57, 2 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 07:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source which seems to discuss this topic in depth is the one entitled "Big cats in South West Victoria - was it the US Army who put them there?" from the ABC, but that's a deadlink and while the Wayback Machine appears to have several crawls, they all just appear to be snapshots of the ABC's 404 page. "DNA tests to determine big cat claims" is at least available and does concern a large cat in the general area, but there's nothing there to suggest it's anything more than a particularly large housecat. I did a Factiva search and drew a blank. If this isn't a hoax, it still fails WP:V in my view. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete without merge/redirect - I'm not seeing any subject "Gippsland phantom cat" here. Some examples of alleged sightings (including a guy who allegedly saw an exotic cat...so he shot it (?), cut off its tail (?), and dumped its body in the river (?), then decided to get it on the news), but tying them together into one subject is WP:SYNTH. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Phantom cat. The subject is not a hoax; it passes Wikipedia:Verifiability. Here is a source about the Gippsland phantom cat:
1. Bateman, Daniel (2012-06-13). "Mystery big cat lurking on Maggie Island - On the prowl". Townsville Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2016-08-12. Retrieved 2016-08-12.
  The article notes:
  Big cat sightings
  The Gippsland Phantom Cat
  It is claimed the cats were brought to south-eastern Victoria by American World War II airmen who had cougars as mascots and released them into the Australian bush.
Cunard (talk) 06:19, 12 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ubiquiti Networks[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. MSJapan (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete deleted 10 years ago and still fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are many articles about Ubiquiti which you can find by searching for "ubiquiti news" or similar in a search engine, in addition to the sources provided in the article. WP:CORPDEPTH only requires more than one source, and there are many more than that. Orthogonal1 (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is all routine and includes press releases. LibStar (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not all press releases. The GPL violation issue, the series of security flaws and the violation of US sanctions are, clearly, not advertising material for Ubiquiti. Orthogonal1 (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- this is a notable publicly-traded high-tech company. I would not delete this one. The article needs a major revamp, that's a given. But I believe it can be done. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per K.e.coffman. Haseo9999 (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERX. not a genuine !vote. LibStar (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concur that the article needs to be revamped but it is a notable company that should remain. Callsignpink (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

what makes it notable? LibStar (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTED is applicable here. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 7 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 Leon County, Florida#Public safety. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 22:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leon County Sheriff's Office (Florida)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. Police agencies seldom do. You'll find plenty about crime, a bit about personal changes but no discussion in detail from multiple reliable sources from geographically diverse areas. John from Idegon (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leon County, Florida#Public safety. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - that would also be acceptable to the nominator. John from Idegon (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 07:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leon County, Florida#Public safety is a good solution. Not notable on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:37, 7 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 02:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riotorto CF[edit]

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

sorry but no evidence of notability (WP:GNG / Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)) Postoronniy-13 (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable Spanish football club. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- thoroughly non notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:41, 7 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 02:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Divine[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO & GNG. Many nominations, with only one dubious award, which appears not to be for a movie. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails PORNBIO and GNG. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the logic of my original prod. "Miss Congeniality" is not a significant award. The purported "documentaty" is not an independent work, but a single episode of a cable newsmagazine. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails every policy here. –Davey2010^Talk 12:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The NightMoves win does not establish notability per WP:PORNBIO. Fails GNG without reliable source coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete comes no where close to meeting the notability guidelines for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 4 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 Speedy Deleted after I tagged it (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allegra Passugger[edit]

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

The company appears to be non-notable as I'm unable to locate RS coverage to confirm notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tagged this article after it was created in 2012 and I see it has not improved since. There is no equivalent article on the German Wikipedia, though there is some coverage of the local mineral water and its commercial outlets in the page on Passugg village: [21]. My searches found a Carlsberg press release from 2005 on the purchase by the current company [22] but I am not seeing the independent 3rd party coverage needed to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Only of local interest, a trivia story at best. Kierzek (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non-notable business; four years is more than long enough to wait for improvements. Quis separabit? 20:11, 5 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 as a week has listed no other comments (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 03:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless dumping[edit]

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

This article has a number of problems for which I see no feasible fix than to delete the article altogether. It is a stub of questionable quality that is poorly sourced and most of the content contained within it is improperly original research. After doing a prima facie search, the term "homeless dumping" is scarcely used in any published literature or other medium. The term "patient dumping" that makes up the majority of the article is far more commonly used and is covered in the article Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (whose section "Mandated and non-mandated care" is the re-direct of "patient dumping"). For those reasons, this article should be deleted. Ergo Sum 23:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Ergo Sum 23:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge It seems easy to to find more sources about the topic such as this. If there are other pages covering similar topics then we should be considering merger rather than deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple search turns up numerous contemporary and historical coverage .--Savonneux (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While there may be such a hypothetical article on "homeless dumping" that should be present on Wikipedia, it certainly is not this article. It focuses almost entirely on a subject for which there is already a different article (patient dumping) and the content that is about "homeless dumping" is poorly sourced and poorly written. Unless someone has the ability and inclination to fix up this article, it seems unreasonable to keep it as is. Ergo Sum 21:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a redirect to Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. If anything this should be moved to patient dumping and homeless dumping should redirect to it instead of the piece of US Federal law that covers it. You are suggesting WP:BLOWITUP which is typically used for copyvios or things that are so severely broken there is no way to fix them. This just needs to be fleshed out, refs need to be fixed, etc. AfD is not article cleanup. It easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY.--Savonneux (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well written and well referenced. A dozen articles in the New York Times archive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose move If the article is to be kept largely in its current form, it would make more sense to move it to "Patient dumping," since that is the term most commonly used in the article and most commonly used in literature and media. Ergo Sum 01:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Cant move it while AfD is still going or I would. Also there is a redirect blocking the move.--Savonneux (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. I agree that this has the potential to be an interesting and useful article, but I also agree that the current article is so badly written and poorly sourced, it doesn't deserve to be in mainspace. So, I suggest moving it to draft, where people can work on improving it (possibly even rewriting it from scratch), and it can be moved back to mainspace when it's ready. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- although it's badly written, it's fixable. For example, I edited the lede. Many sources can be found, as has been asserted. Bearian (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. there is substantial overlap, but the article can be sufficiently developed. Theimprovement is more likely to occur in article space. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 13 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riverstone Holdings[edit]

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

Lacking coverage in independent sources, only passing mention in some sources, first NYT reference is not useful because notability is not inherited, relationship to Goldman Sachs is not useful because notability is not inherited. This article reads like a company announcement for investors and clients. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When I first saw this article I certainly thought it read like an advert and should be deleted. That said it now contains some useful information that is only available from cited independent sources rather than the company's website viz (i) the buyout of the company was backed by a former President of Enron (ii) it has had to pay $30 million in restitution for "corrupt" activities (iii) a company it set up is alleged to have bribed Angolan officials. Dormskirk (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- sufficient coverage to establish notability via independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Today's source : [23]. --Nouill (talk) 20:06, 8 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 02:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Brazil[edit]

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

non-notable coach of non-notable team (that article should probably go too) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not managed senior international football nor managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:48, 8 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 02:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TopBargains[edit]

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

PROD removed apparently with the basis that the improvements were enough but they are not, searches at all major Australian newspapers have no found anything better than the listed and, even then, these listed are simply mentions including as either website listings or guides. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails all our tests of notability (also promotional in present form, but that could be cured). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is very subjective and this article has better sources than almost all other sites in Category:Australian websites. This deletionism means all those pages should also deleted. Deleting a well-written, well-sourced article on the basis of subjective personal assessment of notability is not fair. Plus it would be nice to see editors making or suggesting improvements to an article before using delete tags.Newusers112 (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SEWAGE. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Reliable secondary sources with indepth coverage of the subject (and independent of the subject) are needed. Clearly lacking here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think its an EGO issue for some people so doesn't really matter as this is going to be deleted anyways. What really is failing here is the trigger happy attitude. I wasted an hour of my time today to add additional sources to this page but I am confident nobody has looked at them or verified them. Its very surprising that the very user who nominated this page for deletion has been maintaining/defending some very poorly written referenced pages. Newusers112 (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(I indented your comment above). I did have a look at the sources and I searched on my own as well. Notability is not about the sources present in the article. It is about the sources which are available out there. In AfD debates, we search for such sources. Sometimes the article just doesn't make the cut and we have to delete it. I understand you are feeling frustrated but we have to set the standards for notability somewhere.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet CORPDEPTH. This is the best that sources can provide "TopBargains was created in 2007[12] and has been online since then. It was listed in Top 100 Australian start ups list.[13] The site now claims to have over 300,000 registered members.[14]"? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references either just include it along with other sites or mention it incidentally--and most of them are unreliable. The only substantial one is the Huffington Post, and that publication is so erratic in its standards that I think we no longer consider it a RES for the purposes of notability . We should of course look at similar articles, which, as mentioned, may be even worse. DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 10 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. czar 07:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faiz Syed[edit]

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

Now that the self-published refs are gone we're left with a non-notable person who is associated with several non-notable organizations. The author was a sock master undertaking multiple paid-edits. for (;;) (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks significant notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As it turns out, what Caroline A. Murphy wrote up is the biography of someone who thinks transgendered people are defective and dirty, and that men should be allowed more than one wife (cause it alleviates poverty?). I'm not yet ready to say this person is not notable--he's not notable as a scholar, but he may well pass the GNG based on his preaching persona. Weak keep. Oh, I defluffed the article some. Murphy (or the puppet) was a notoriously bad writer of promotional fluff; the article could do with some help. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please Delete per nomination and be done with this drivel. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 21:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing actually convincing for his own notability, SwisterTwister talk 19:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Evidence of notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:26, 4 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We... Our War[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to suggest notability under WP:BAND. KaisaL (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I for one consider this A7. SwisterTwister talk 03:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed. I've checked and it does fall short of WP:NBAND. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 5 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 List of attacks related to post-secondary schools. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 22:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Haruka Weiser[edit]

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

Every victim of crime is noteworthy in their own way, but that does not necessarily make them of encyclopedic value. This victim does not seem to have been notable for anything other than her death. See WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note this was a relatively recent incident, in April 2016. Do let's be very polite here. --do ncr am 03:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, perhaps, to item on Haruka Weiser in List of attacks related to post-secondary schools, which leaves a redirect behind, and which leaves the article's previous versions in the edit history, so it is not an outright deletion. I looked at inbound links and found this list-article. The Haruka Weiser article does include multiple reliable sources, including NY Daily News and the Los Angeles Times. It was a significant event, IMHO, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. However we do have policy that single events usually do not make a person Wikipedia-notable (i.e. we don't keep an article on them), and the single event itself is usually not deemed Wikipedia-notable. From what the article covers, it does seem to be an example of an unprovoked attack on a person at a university, i.e. related to the list-article. I don't immediately see any other candidate articles to combine the Haruka Weiser article with. I suggest calling this "merge" rather than merely "redirect" to reflect that there is content and sources in the current article which can/should be used, selectively, to improve the item description in the list-article. --do ncr am 03:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reasons for deletion is faulty at best. The article has good sources, her death is notable and she passes WP:GNG. WP:IDONTLIKEIT which seems to be the main reason for this deletion is irrelevant against notability guidelines.BabbaQ (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A memorial does not dwelve into the persons death and other areas of a case. This article does. WP:MEMORIAL does not apply.BabbaQ (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list and redirect: I am drawn by BabbaQ's position that this is not simply a WP:MEMORIAL, but it is, sadly, a run of the mill campus crime. I think putting it into the list and keeping the bluelink is the best solution. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Run of the mill campus crime? that is POV and is not taking into consideration the guidelines for notability. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list and redirect as stated above; just not notable in and of itself for a stand alone article as it is a single event, which is unfortunately not unique, but should not be deleted altogether. Kierzek (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines always trumps POV. Both of your !votes does disregard the guidelines stipulated by Wikipedia concerning notability for these kind of articles. BabbaQ (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

also, WPNOTTEMPORARY. Notaiblity isnt temporary because an event that happened some time back isnt getting the same attention anymore. This article is clearly well-soruced and has received plenty of media attention.BabbaQ (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand nottemporary and I agree not memorial does not preclude having an article. But general notability wp:BIO includes exception wp:BIO1E. Isn't this like example there of George(?) Holiday, who just gets a redirect? --do ncr am 16:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of attacks related to post-secondary schools per above. Personal feelings about this tragedy aside, the victim would not meet WP:GNG outside of, well, being the victim, as there are no sources pre-event. Likewise, all of the coverage is about the murder itself, and nothing related to changes in policy, etc., as a result. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:41, 8 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 Wikipedias. czar 07:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Azerbaijani Wikipedia[edit]

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

Not notable Wikipedia version. GZWDer (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Confirmed version by Wikipedia abouth 1000 articles.--Samək^Talk 20:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how any of the smaller versions justify an article, really. It's plainly subject bias (which we have a lot of, with Wikimedia directors, etc) and if it wasn't a branch of Wikipedia it wouldn't be close to meeting the site guidelines. KaisaL (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias. No independent sources have been provided. Merely being an edition of Wikipedia is not an automatic claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:04, 4 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 02:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Outcasts[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable tag team. Nothing sourced except move sets and week by week updates. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 01:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the group did not last very long and is now broken up, this is litterally all there is to write on them. It should be a section in the appropraite articles, not a seperate one. MPJ-DK 01:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very unsuccessful and unimportant group. starship.paint ~ KO 01:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, 3MB was more notable.LM2000 (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.LM2000 (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even the stables that lasted 3-6 months proved to be more notable and successful than this one. Nickag989^talk 09:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - LM2000 said it perfectly. JTP ^(talk) 04:22, 5 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. Not a snowball's chance of another outcome. czar 08:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Leigh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable porn actress. G4 speedy declined because new article is too different from the previous deleted version. Still fails WP:PORNBIO with only a scene-related award win. Fails WP:GNG with no reliable sources cited and only a quote to CNBC found in searches. She appeared in a Pitbull music video but that falls well short of PORNBIO criterion #3. The only new facts since the 2014 deletion debate are a few more award nominations. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both PORNBIO and GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable subject. "only a scene-related award win"? -- yes please. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the required notability requirements. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's sound analysis. Adding incoherent machine-translated junk text to a deleted article should not be sufficient to defeat db-repost. "Leigh has played in movies in multiple species apart from the normal relationship scene" is not a genuine claim of significance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 12:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. The incomprehensible text and text with clear grammatical errors (which I have now removed) are strong indications of a basic competence issue. Kablammo (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clearly non-notable pornographic actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per all of the above. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article; as noted, "only a scene-related award winner"; a real stretch on notability here. Kierzek (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails guidelines, salt is not necessary as there was a reasonable misunderstanding by the creator of the article about the guidelines. GuzzyG (talk) 23:31, 5 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.