Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 February	21 February >

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 procedural close. Moved by creator to Draft:Deep K. Patel. Either take it to WP:MfD or wait for it to be reintroduced to article space. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 00:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was created by a sockpuppet of User:Editor2626744. The article was mildly promotional and I've speedied the draft article as such, especially as now the sockpuppet and the master have both been blocked. I have no problem restoring the draft article to a non-sockpuppet editor if anyone is interested in adopting it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deep K. Patel[edit]

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

References do not show that the person meets WP:AUTHOR yet. Blogs, interviews, Twitter, and self-published references. No further indication of notability found on Google. Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Page has been created before as Deep Patel and Draft:Deep Patel but I can't find an AfD so a community discussion on this article is probably warranted to put the issue to rest. Majora (talk) 23:12, 20 February 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 Snow Keep. Even I use CCleaner ...., As noted ~~above~~ below it is a notable software and had I been aware of the AFD I too would've !voted Keep but pretty pointless now ... So closing as Keep instead. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CCleaner[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not meet the notability guidelines for products and services. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of the most popular Windows utilities. Coverage: [1] from Chip, [2] from TechRadar, [3] from PC Magazine, [4] from PC World, [5] from TechRepublic, etc. I expect that pretty much every major technology site is going to have an article about this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is certainly enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well known free utility, lots of references in specialist computer publications. Shritwod (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable program. I need this article every day to check to see what the current version of the program is. Georgia guy (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep. Well-known, plenty of coverage. Softlavender (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very well known free utility, well referenced, even if you will never likely find it on Facebook, etc. Ironically, it would be known more widely if it was not free... Enquire (talk) 01:17, 26 February 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) 00:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adonai Rocha[edit]

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

Disputed prod. As discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Adonai_Rocha, promotional tone issues could be fixed, but as noted by Bishonen this is essentially an unsourced BLP (none of the sources discuss him in general) created by a WP:COI account. Dweller (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are a trainwreck as I detailed here. I note the SPA account who created the article has removed the prod template without explanation and without adding sources. This is permitted, but that's not to say it's ideal. I hope, if there are actual third-party sources out there, he's encouraged by this AfD to find them and add them. Bishonen | talk 22:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I've added two references, one from MAM Rio and one about awards from World Monuments Fund official flickr account. None of them can actually support notability. The problem is may be we missing some reference on Portuguese, so may be worth getting someone who can read and understand Portuguese. Also, the article has some serious claims about him being exhibited in "prestigious galleries and museums". In such cases I would expect quite a lot of independent reviews in media, which I can't find, unfortunately Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability for a living person should be a whole lot more obvious than it is in this case. giso6150 (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 25 February 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) 00:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kamil Szeremeta[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOX. Only sources are links to sources anyone can edit and don't show significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything that meets WP:NBOX and there doesn't appear to be anything but routine coverage and links to his fight record and none of that is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:44, 26 February 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) 00:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PBSOTalk[edit]

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

Article about an organization which does not seem to meet WP:NORG. Most references are from tabloid gossip rags or primary sources. There are 3 reliable sources which all talk to the same event but do not support the notability of this group specifically. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NOT NEWS, and there are BLP considerations in addition. Tho the article itself isn't about a person, thereis significant negative BLP material, and the sourcing isn't good enough for that. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A related AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John M. Dougan ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 21:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A related AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BadVolf reddogsix (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The author is blocked for abusing multiple accounts, which doesn't surprise me after reading this article. It's more activism than encyclopedia. Minor show that wouldn't be heard of at all without a single event. Lack of significant coverage about the show by reliable third parties. The fact that they are involved in a news story doesn't mean there is coverage about them. More a case of WP:NOTNEWS than actual notability. If kept, this has some serious BLP issues. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:23, 23 February 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. If somebody requests, I will be happy to restore to their user space. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*repeat repeat[edit]

repeat repeat (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Primary sources and lacking notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it on Wikipedia. They have national references, their music is charting, and the drummer is the drummer for cavo. Clearly they fit the notability guidelines. User:Bball606 —Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I could find none and the references in the article do not meet WP:RS. On which charts are they charting? WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best and draft & userfy if needed as none of this better satisfies the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. They have clear coverage national coverage with references listed in cmj and daytrotter. There are artists on here that don't even have that and they're pages aren't being deleted and vandalized. bball606. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bball606 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see the usual sources (Pitchfork, Spin, Stereogum) that would indicate notability. As Walter noted, most of the references are WP:PRIMARY. Don't get me wrong, interesting band, just not notable. Add when they have a contract and a truly national profile. Karst (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete References are great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanmenu (talk • contribs) 20:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. If they are moving up, they will become more notable as time goes on. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:11, 23 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Alubo[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Nigeriam musicians are not generally considered notable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I patrolled this at NPP last week and had plans to nominate it because none of this suggests better satisfying the applicable notability , nothing better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails GNG. Populated with unreliable references and blogs. There's infact a wikipedia reference.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:55, 27 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Lagos Andino[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails. WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Lecturers are not generally considered notable Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The strongest claim of notability in the article is not his academic career but his being the Honduran ambassador to Germany. But that's not a position of automatic notability; it still requires WP:GNG-level depth of coverage in reliable sources. I found sources that confirm that he held that position [6] but not enough for GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:NOTRESUME. and no inherent notability in any of the roles he held. LibStar (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Odina[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Fashion designers are not generally considered notable Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ??? Fashion designers are considered notable in the same measure as people in any other line of work, and we have hundreds of articles about them. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are considered notable if they meet one or more of the primary notability criteria. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find much significant coverage of him, just one video profile on YouTube linked from here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE criteria, which I assume are most applicable for a fashion designer.--Rpclod (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although I must point out that MANY fashion designers are notable - thousands, rather than hundreds, if they do indeed pass the right criteria. Much as I would like for this guy to be demonstrably notable (we need more coverage of artists of colour and from less well-represented backgrounds), I simply do not see sufficient coverage of him to pass notability. The best I am seeing on a quick search is this, and that is basically a passing reference confirming that he does exist. Mabalu (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Dougan[edit]

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

Non-notable individual known for WP:1EVENT. Coverage appears to be local only. Article written by admitted COI. reddogsix (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admitted conflict if interest? This is not true at all. I know this man from a single interview and I have been following him for years. I follow many people for years. Liudmille Titova, Pavel Borodin, Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Tony Robbins, and I have met them all at one time or another. Does this make my contribution less valuable? He is a subject that interests me because he is like Russia's Navalny; I am sure every article on Wikipedia is written by an author that is interested in the subject. This is a conflict of interest? As far as local coverage only, okay. If you wish, I will put some national references. How about from the Chicago Tribune? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-bc-fl--information-breach-20160217-story.html Or a newspaper in Texas? http://www.theeagle.com/news/nation/confidential-addresses-of-officials-posted-online/article_d3a2e27f-9598-5b57-9f99-d0585c7d0f7a.html

A Conflict of Interest according to Wikipedia is:

"Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. (The word interest refers here to something in which a person has a stake or from which they stand to benefit.)" Aleksandra E. Borodina (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not stand to benefit, I am not the subject, his family, a client, he is not an employer, I have no financial dealings with him or any other relationships with the subject. The only interection I have had is running into him at events here in Palm Beach and an interview. Of course, none of my own materials are used in this article. That would be a conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alekborodina (talk • contribs) 15:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a citation from the Chicago Tribune Aleksandra E. Borodina (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NOT NEWS. I'm not sure whether this is really ONE event or not, but it's too unimportant and too local for a general encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Admitted Conflict of Interest" reddogsix is claiming is from meeting the man one single time and it was at a social event. At the same time, I met Donald Trump and Tony Robbins, but claiming I know them, this would be untrue. This interpretation of the COI is not within the spirit of the policy. There is no common sense or logic being used in this case. Aleksandra E. Borodina (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not yet deleting the article. My sister registered for an account and it somehow made me unable to edit for a week. This being over, I have added a reference to the Washington Post / Associated Press and will clean up the article based on your suggestions. I ask if you can give me until Wednesday, 03/02 to do this before a final decision is rendered. Thank you! Aleksandra E. Borodina (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as none of this suggests a better applicably notable article. SwisterTwister talk 02:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dubious references, confusing article, unclear notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tomwsulcer for not yet deleting the article. I have added a reference to the Washington Post / Associated Press and will clean up the article based on your suggestions. I ask if you can give me until Wednesday, 03/02 to do this before a final decision is rendered. Thank you! Aleksandra E. Borodina (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A related AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBSOTalk ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 21:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A related AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BadVolf reddogsix (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like mostly tied to one event, an on-going feud with the local sheriff's office. This really looks like BLP1E to me. Single editor responsible for multiple articles revolving around this feud (see BadVolf and the now deleted PBSOTalk) make this look less encyclopedic and more like an agenda. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:31, 28 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mango Plumo[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Mango Plumo" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Contested PROD with a claim for new sources. Non-notable video games/series. I cannot locate multiple reliable independent in-depth sources for WP:GNG, such as WP:VG/RS. Does not appear that the coverage has changed since last AfD. No meaningful hits in custom RS search. The only new source that is probably RS is Discovery Education, but it's only a single one. All the other sources in the article are unreliable or not in-depth. Lots of search hits otherwise, but none appear in-depth, mostly directory entries and generic descriptions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about museum of play and the national parenting center? Aren't these just as reliable as disovery education? - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt they are, but, even if they are, the content is not in-depth. That's one of the three requirements -- for there to be significant content on the topic. NPC is barely a paragraph with only a generic description. MoP is brief generic description and mostly not about the game(s). DE at least has significant content and critical reception in the form of a review, although doesn't state who the author is nor can I find any editorial information, though [7] probably implies they have decent standards. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my argument last time. Article does not appear to be notable, and the new sources discovered aren't convincing enough. AdrianGamer (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as it doesn't look like anybody cares enough about these games to write sources about them. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about the fact that NPC gave the game its seal of approval? Doesn't that make the game notable? - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it means much at all when the accompanying review is hardly a paragraph of PR information. They have not listed a single critical thing about the game. Perhaps they did have something more comprehensive internally, but we cannot verify this without any published material. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)\[reply]
  - Plus even if a single source is about the game, it doesn't make the game itself notable. There are a lot of hidden gems out there, though I don't think this is one. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Hellknowz is right, there aren't multiple, reliable sources to be found. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:43, 23 February 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) 00:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of most viewed non Vevo videos on YouTube[edit]

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

This is an OR split of the main list List of most viewed videos on YouTube, and to some degree a POV fork. While sources have documented the top videos on YouTube irregardless of type, they have not broken that down by "non-Vevo videos", making it an unnatural categorization, and thus OR. It's also trying to work around the fact that the bulk of videos at the top of the original list are Vevo-based, but that's how it works, we don't have a say in it. This was previously PROD/CSD but those appeared to have been removed without question MASEM (t) 14:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject matter is very obscure and abstract. Who'd ever search for this? Maybe there might be the slightest interest at a list of the top non- music videos but simply non-Vevo? Doubt it... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is nothing more than a search result on an existing list. None of the references address the subject directly. I think the PROD mentioned above was on a copy of this list without a slightly different title by the same author - not sure what the point of that was.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This would seem to be an interesting topic that newspapers, magazines and/or webzines would want to talk about, but all I can find are links to non-reliable Youtube video compilations of most-viewed non-Vevo videos. The list is clearly an indiscriminate collection of information, although I'll give it credit that its not as bad of a case as the top ten most-viewed Taylor Swift videos on Vevo. edtiorEهեইдအ😎 23:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is very clear OR and does not add anything encyclopedic to the article of most-viewed videos regardless of type. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 02:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A10 as simple and arbitrary trimming-down of existing article. LjL (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that it is a spur of the list of most viewed YouTube videos. I also think it is kind-of unnecessary to have an entirely separate list for non-Vevo videos. JakeR (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 03:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has no encyclopedic valle; the List of most viewed YouTube videos already has this done. Vevo views are still on the YouTube site. Kyle1278 ^(talk) ^(Ctb) ^(log) 09:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What next ? ... "List of most viewed Vevo videos on YouTube" ? .... Anyway we already have an article on most viewed videos somewhere ...., Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 01:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowmere[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Shadowmere" "Elder Scrolls" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Non-notable fictional being. I cannot locate any reliable independent in-depth sources for WP:GNG, such as WP:VG/RS. The article content is primarily WP:PLOT and WP:GAMECRUFT, and does not establish a claim for notability with non-in-universe content as per WP:WAF. No meaningful hits in custom RS search. There are many hits otherwise, but none appear to be both reliable and in-depth. Taking to AfD instead of PROD due to number of search hits. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best merge. I were able to find a single article from 2011, only guiding in how to get it instead of being some in-depth coverage. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, and written more like a good faith essay than a legit article. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For what it's worth, there's a little bit of coverage, such as [8] and [9], though they're top ten lists. Obviously, this belongs on a list of characters from the Elder Scrolls series. However, I don't think we have one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does sound like an article we might need, however. The series is continuous so the characters are shared. But one would need to be an expert to make it. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack the notability required for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AN Games Studio[edit]

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

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

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

(Find video game sources: "AN Games Studio" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. None of the current sources cover the company in any depth, especially enough to write a reliable article on the topic. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 15:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 15:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar 15:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: * Keep Incase if you have not noticed reference #6 http://jets.iti.gov.eg/newsDetailView/4385 is a very reliable source especially when it's from an egyptian government website. i mean what reference can be more legit. anyway i contacted the company and they seem happy to cooperate Aelpop (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dear Czar thanks alot for review efforts, this is ahmed fawzy ceo and founder of the company, sorry for any conflict, our game studio is officially recorded @ government, and we have any official papers required for that, we have been also listed on http://www.gamedevmap.com under egypt which is very trusted website for listing official game studios arround the world they also checked official records. If you need any extra official proves such as our studio contracts and governmental papers scan let me know please to send or include as references and I will do with pleasure, you can also make sure our official website is made by me by checking who is angamesstudio.com and you have my official email on my account profile. Thanks a lot mate Engineer.Ahmed.Fawzy (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC) — Engineer.Ahmed.Fawzy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

(I didn't get your ping—they only send when you sign your post (with four tildes) in the same edit.) The reliable sources guideline has more about what constitutes a reliable source—we don't need official government sources or really popular pages, but news outlets with a reputation for reliability and fact-checking who cover the topic in depth. This is to say that it's not really about cooperation but the type of available sources. We have examples of some such sources at WP:VG/RS, but I've already searched them for your company and didn't find anything. While we're on the subject, please do keep the COI guidelines in mind when editing. We ask editors with financial affiliations to declare their interest on the article's talk page. czar 15:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Thanks for being a good guide. i think the only reason you didn't find anything that the game industry in egypt are just getting started and this something happened years ago globally in other countries. so it won't get the global attention. but the event was a big impact of of course in egypt and was mentioned all over the egyptian media as it appears for example in reference #7 http://egypttoday.com/blog/2013/12/11/apps-that-make-a-difference. this will be the history of the game industry in egypt. which is so important to record at the moment. Aelpop (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may indeed be the case, but WP is a tertiary source that collects reliable, secondary sources on topics. So when a topic such as this does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?), we have to wait until it does to give it a dedicated article. If, on the other hand, there are enough sources for an article on the Egyptian video game industry, that could be an option, but unless you're able to dig up lots of reliable Egyptian newspaper coverage dedicated to this developer in specific, there likely isn't enough verifiable content to write a full article. czar 19:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as none of the current article suggests convincing notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 22:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think i can dig up more sources and refrences to cover an article about Egyptian video game industry and how it evovled. Aelpop (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New source from the news i found while digging for the developer http://www.masrdotbokra.com/Story_Details.aspx?StoryID=1013 and a google translation for the page because it's in arabic https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ar&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.masrdotbokra.com%2FStory_Details.aspx%3FStoryID%3D1013&edit-text= . and i'm working right now to dig up offline source from the newspapers. Aelpop (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New (non-English and offline) source it's a screenshot of one of the egyptian newspapers which wrote about the event. i grabbed it from the facebook account of the journalist who wrote the article Nancy Fares https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1059921980699943&set=a.275575142467968.85912.100000464520907&type=3&theater. i will include all the new sources in the article as soon as possible and i will keep digging for more. Aelpop (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the page with "ahmed fawzy" in the byline was posted by the other editor in this thread (and it reads like a press release). I don't have any indication about the quality or content of that newspaper photo. czar 14:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in 2015 "an games studio" participated in global game jam, and helped game developers by forming a team form juniors under lead of senior ahmed fawzy, made a game called "What do we do now? (The end of the world)", here is the link of participation account http://globalgamejam.org/users/engahmedfawzy where an games website is mentioned, and link to the game and team formed here http://globalgamejam.org/2015/games/what-do-we-do-now-end-world global game jam is very popular around the world and reliable source

@Engineer.Ahmed.Fawzy: you don't need to put keep on every reply , it's not a vote , this is just a discussion and opinion clarification. and don't forget to sign your posts on this page by adding 4 tilde symbols at the end. about your source nice work but i think news is prefered so focus on news and keep up the good work.feel free to contribute to help improve the article. i recommend you The Wikipedia Adventure to get the basics of editing and writing articles on wikipedia. cheers everybody. Aelpop (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aelpop: ok removed

More for game development history in egypt , minister Atef_Helmy in global game jam 2015 in egypt discuss with AN Games Studio what we do and future of game development https://www.facebook.com/AN.Games.Studio/photos/pb.399729550132545.-2207520000.1455029479./645688855536612/?type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/AN.Games.Studio/photos/pb.399729550132545.-2207520000.1455029479./645688825536615/?type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/AN.Games.Studio/photos/pb.399729550132545.-2207520000.1455029479./645688788869952/?type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/AN.Games.Studio/photos/pb.399729550132545.-2207520000.1455029479./645688772203287/?type=3&theater Engineer.Ahmed.Fawzy (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

those are great photos which prove your strong presence in the game development scene in egypt and can light up the article. may i have your permission to add one of them to the article mr ahmed ? Aelpop (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aelpop: sure please do in case it can help Engineer.Ahmed.Fawzy (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is off-topic but the photo's copyright holder (the photographer) needs to give their permission. There are more instructions at Wikipedia:Consent czar 17:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: dear czar photos are owned by our studio we have taken during the event and there is no any copy right on it, I really wonder if photos is off topic & world wide map for game studios is not reliable, and all official refernced introduced here that record important events in history of developing game industry in egyptian community all you just comment with not reliable or off topic, it really doesn't make sense to me the ignore to all these references. Anyway I will try to get to here some arabian admins from wiki community they can confirm some of resources written in arabic like newspaper. Thanks anyway for efforts. Engineer.Ahmed.Fawzy (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources mention this, at all. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans:hi, here reliable sources

* world wide map of game companies all over the world

http://www.gamedevmap.com/ -> check egypt

* EgyptToday Webite article mention our winner game (third paragraph) which is hosted under our official google play account

- the news link http://egypttoday.com/blog/2013/12/11/apps-that-make-a-difference/

- game on "AN Games Studio" account link https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=AN+Games&hl=en

* Egyptian information technoligy inistitute talk about same game as winning game (under smartphone apps)

http://jets.iti.gov.eg/newsDetailView/4385

* old article from a girl taking about our demo game, even article is arabic, our studio name is very clear in english

http://forums.fatakat.com/thread4663913

beside sources that was mentioned above in previous replies, it is just the company doesn't have many of english resources but it is not like we haven't at all Engineer.Ahmed.Fawzy (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the references qualify as reliable sources or demonstrate that the subject is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~^{[duplicate !vote]} just because none of the regular english western media haven't talk about the company doesn't mean it's not notable , when a country that haven't Witness any kind of 3d video game have been developed on it's land and a company comes to break this state and most of the arabian media,press, and government talk about it. i call this history which should be recorded for humanity and for the future generation of egyptians who would want to know when video games industry started on their country. the english western media won't mention this event simply because it's something happened years ago in their countries so they won't give a damn. most of the english wiki admins blindly won't accept nothing but the western media. that's the reason why most of you wrongly think the references is not reliable. without an arabian admins in this discussion. the egyptian history that should be written will be blindly deleted. Aelpop (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- We're not here to discuss geopolitical issues. And ranting about English western media really won't help your case. Fact of the matter is, is that this game developer is not notable. A forum post by a girl talking about the game? How does that make the developer notable? A link to Google Play is a commercial one, and we all know that are thousands upon thousands of video games to be found there, a fraction of which are notable - and again, doesn't make the developer notable. The only sources that is somewhat reliable is Egypt Today, but that's one source and does not mean the developer has to have an article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans: sir, egypttoday is reliable soruce, jest.iti.gov is more reliable source too, most of websites introduced are very popular to all egyptians, im not sure how you just judged egypttoday is , and others not ( what is your criteria ??) is it name of website ?? our locals know this reliable sources very well, and i think Aelpop is not talking about any geopoliticals, he is just focus on importance of recording things as wiki articles do, thanks sir anyway. Engineer.Ahmed.Fawzy (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable video game developer not meeting WP:NCORP and failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. The sources in the article and given above do not pass GNG. A few are likely be reliable, but they are not nearly in-depth. A lot of sourcing discussion above boils down to whether it is reliable, but neglects that it also needs to be both independent and in-depth. Importance and popularity is not relevant to notability. I see no additional search results and I assume all potentially usable non-English sources have already been presented. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellknowz: totally dis-agree with non-notable, just try this in google search engine " ahmed fawzy game developer egypt " without quotations, with more than two pages of results all is about ahmed fawzy same person game developer in egypt, thanks mate Engineer.Ahmed.Fawzy (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those hits are not 1) reliable 2) independent and 3) in-depth. That is what "notable" on Wikipedia means. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 00:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellknowz: actually they are from various resources like linkedin, youtube, egyptian gaming communities, it is only my bad luck to not have english wiki interrest from many people to record such important info, please note

(iti / jets lab) is first reliable game dev educational inistitut in egypt.

gamedev map is a 6 years old reliable source

samsung comptetion recorded videos delivering prizes in 2013 / 2014 twice is very reliable.

photos with communication minister

i'm really tired of explain each time about how this sources are reliable and known in our countries, i really advice not delete if not aware about local reputation here. Engineer.Ahmed.Fawzy (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As others has already replied regarding those sources, they are not 1) reliable 2) independent and 3) in-depth. Please actually read what WP:GNG says. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not meet the requirements of WP:GNG and is therefore not suitable for inclusion, at this time — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GradeAUnderA[edit]

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

YouTube personality WP:BLP article with no reliable secondary sources found. Tgeairn (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources that are on the page seem to be primary sources, especially a link to his Patreon (really, free advertising?). Not seeing anything outside these sources to show notability. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cleaned up the article and added some sources I could find. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I myself am a fan of his YouTube videos but this article reads terribly, and his name just isn't out in the open - he's only known to the Internet community, for now this is his only claim to fame 172.56.20.240 (talk)
~~Keep~~ Weak Keep I further cleaned up the article and added information from a new interview. At this point I think this meets notability standards. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and maybe there should be a revote since this doesn't resemble anything like what the article used to be like. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for review of new sources added to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has over a million YouTube subs, and he is very well known on the internet besides YouTube, such as on Reddit. 24.224.195.254 (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At this point, following the work of many, the article has 14 references. None of these individually or in combination meet WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. Specifically: 1) Twitch is self-published content, 2) livecounts is routine reporting (at best, and the ref in the article is broken), 3) tubefilter is closest but does not meet either of WEBCRIT, 4) reddit AMA is not independent of the subject, 5) self-published, 6) upvotes on reddit are not notability, 7) passing quote, 8) article is not about the subject, 9) ???, 10) being nominated in a reddit contest is not notability, 11) about a debate, not about the subject, 12) about a debate, not about the subject, 13) statistical reporting does not confer notability, 14) Yes, another channel exists. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even after a valiant cleanup, the article's subject does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) I verified the source review above, and the secondary sources listed (save for the Daily Dot) either do not discuss the subject in any depth or are unreliable for statements of fact. czar 23:27, 26 February 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 23:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of the South (film)[edit]

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

This movie was never made, see this Variety article. Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and rename~~ Delete as Queen of the South (TV series). It was made into a 2011 TV series by Telemundo in Miami, Florida. The Spanish article is La reina del sur (telenovela). And one reason we know about this, is because copies of the series DVDs were found when drug king El Chapo was captured last month. The series actress Kate del Castillo was in contact with El Chapo, who is a big fan of both the actress and the series. Currently, an English language version of the series is being filmed in Dallas, Texas for the USA Network. Deadline Hollywood Jan 22, 2016, Central Track Feb 3, 2016. — Maile (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If you are suggesting to have an English wikipedia article about the 2011 Telemundo telenovela, here it is: La Reina del Sur (telenovela). I don't see any connection between the telenovela and the announced movie (actors, executive producers, production companies, etc. all differ) other than both being based on the same book, so I don't see why those should be merged. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that link. I wasn't suggesting a merge. I was suggesting a renaming for a separate article on the USA network series being filmed. Like you, I don't find anything that it was actually made as a movie. But WP:BEFORE we do an actual delete, perhaps we should consider just the renaming. The USA network series has been in the works since 2015, so maybe it would be more prudent to just rename/transform this article for the USA network series.— Maile (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The upcoming USA Network Queen of the South (TV series) also has its own article, and is not based on the film either.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That being the case, I struck my Keep and am now Delete. — Maile (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the Variety article, this looks like this should be at best a mention in another related article. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 01:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content is mergeable in the Jonathan Jakubowicz page. Cavarrone 20:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject movie was never released and apparently nobody cares except this article.--Rpclod (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 25 February 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 23:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Development Cafe[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also was not able to find the needed in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to establish notability. The author was also informed of the problem but has not been able to provide the needed references.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Reliable independent sources have not been provided and could not be found. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 02:19, 21 February 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban Secrets (film)[edit]

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

Fails NFILM and the GNG. No assertion of notability. No independent reliable sourcing (all references are to the video itself. PROD tendentiously removed without explanation or article improvement by the usual suspect.) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Due diligence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

KEEP per due diligence showing this not-porn but adult-themed sexploitation film by Joseph W. Sarno as just meeting WP:GNG and WP:NF. Was really quite easy to find authored reviews at DVD Verdict. 10k Bullets, Exploitation Retrospect, Plume Noire, and others.[10] I politely remind that since a topic's notability is found through sources being available, used or not, no article ever has to specifically say "I am notable because". This simply needs editorial attention, and not deletion for a lack. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. --do ncr am 00:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And MichaelQSchmidt expanded the article, including adding a "Reception" section with multiple reviews, and I added a bit from Sarno's 2010 NYT obituary. Wherever the article was before, it is now clearly over the "Keep" line IMHO. --do ncr am 20:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep subject of the article meet WP:GNG and WP:NF. Another nomination with a complete lack of WP:BEFORE. Many thanks to Sir. Michael for this diligent work. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:31, 22 February 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. and will rename as suggested DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Iron Age[edit]

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

This is an unusual use of the term "Roman Iron Age" and I can't source it to Oscar Montelius or I'd redirect it. As a term or phrase used by Montelius it doesn't seem in any way notable. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There does appear to be some support in the literature for considering the Iron Age in Northern Europe as consisting of both a pre-Roman Iron Age and a Roman (influenced) Iron Age. See Human Sacrifice in Iron Age Northern Europe: the Culture of the Bog People, google snippets at Local Societies in Bronze Age Northern Europe and Roman Reflections: Iron Age to Viking Age in Northern Europe. If kept, moving to Roman Iron Age in Northern Europe might be appropriate. As it is currently unsourced and I don't have access right now to the sources needed to update it, I can't in good conscience !vote keep. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Roman Iron Age in Northern Europe ("N" or "n"?), which is the subject here; ie the Iron Age of the lands north of (and during) the Roman Empire but obviously much influenced by it. But the present title is crazy, at least in English - it may be common in books in the local languages, as searches on eg the Norweigian/Danish "Romersk jernalder" suggest. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Roman Iron Age in northern Europe per johnbod. In England the Iron Age ended with the Roman invasion in AD 43. In Scotland (which was never permanently conquered) the Iron Age continues until the arrival of Christianity in about the 6th century. In Ireland similarly, the next period is Early Christian. If the term "Roman Iron Age" is used for the period in north Germany (and northwards) when it was influenced by Roman culture and trade from the south and west, we should retain the term, but it needs a qualifier, as its use seems to be limited in geographic scope. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the suggestion that the page should be renamed for clarity, not deleted. The page on the "pre-Roman" iron age has several sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Roman_Iron_Age) which may be of use in sourcing information on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.196.224 (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance and Liberation[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Resistance and Liberation" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Fails WP:GNG. A quick Google search does not bring up any reliable sources mentioning the game. Soetermans. T / C 12:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fairly unnotable user content, not really a "game". Only the standalone which seems to be in the works appears even a bit notable. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Doesn't meet GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable unsourced video game mod failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Being a mod of a notable video game is WP:NOTINHERITED. No meaningful hits in custom RS search, mainly non-in-depth mentions. I see various search hits otherwise, but none appear suitable for GNG, the press simply hasn't covered it in depth. It does not appear like new reliable in-depth coverage has appeared since last AfDs. The available--mainly primary--sources do not provide enough material to write a meaningful article without WP:PLOT and WP:GAMECRUFT and with WP:WAF in mind. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:52, 25 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniele Bongiovanni[edit]

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

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}}.

According to guidelines for Creative Profession. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors? It seems not. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique? It seems not. The person's works has won significant critical attention, or is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums? It is not known Gprosso (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is interesting, there's now been 5 new users editing this article, out of a total of 7 editors. I don't think they quite WP:GNG but I don't know Italian. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of this artist is referenced, this artist is in private collections 4 institutions or museums: Museo Macia (Costa Rica), Centro Documentazione Amedeo Modigliani (Siena), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (USA),next to the Vittoriano (Rome), this is taken up in ref, and also described by the same curator. I ask to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Analuim (talk • contribs) 12:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, the reference ^[1] has been written today "13 febbraio 2016" probably on commission, as can be read by opening the link "La Redazione ringrazia Camilla Delpero per la segnalazione."

File:Screenshot ticinolive.png

Commissioned article "La Redazione ringrazia Camilla Delpero per la segnalazione"

and ^[2] has been written yesterday "12 febbraio 2016"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gprosso (talk • contribs) 12:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: Analuim is a Confirmed sock puppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Artmimi.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment This article probably written for advertising purposes, this italian artist isn't notability. The creator of this article was a puppeteer who has continually edited with 11 sockpuppets this Article. See Revision History and Wikipedia: Sockpuppet investigations/Artmimi/Archive

Gprosso (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.ticinolive.ch/2016/02/13/lesperienza-della-bellezza-nel-percorso-e-nelle-opere-di-daniele-bongiovanni-di-gregorio-rossi/
^ http://www.laprimapagina.it/2016/02/12/daniele-bongiovanni-lungo-percorso-che-fara-tappa-al-vittoriano-di-roma/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence they pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All available references are apparently PR. Not in major museum (the Vittoriana is a historical monument where there are shows--it does not seem to have a permanent collection) DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as WP:SPAM. Mduvekot (talk) 20:23, 27 February 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.

FYI I deleted a screenshot originally included in this discussion, per a discussion among OTS agents in the OTRS mailing list.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to List of OS X components. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 12:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chess (OS X)[edit]

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

This article is being nominated again as the last discussion from less than three years ago closed due to lack of arguments, but the notability concerns still remain. I was still unable to find in-depth coverage about this program. This is a mostly unsourced article with all the sources cited here being primary sources that only mention this program in passing and in relation to the Mac computer only. This should at best be a redirect to the article about Mac OS X. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 01:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest possible keep. There is currently little information about the topic, and all that can be written is some information and what it does. However, merging it in to OS X would nonetheless distract readers away from coverage of the OS itself, reduce the ability of comparison with other similar programs, and since may compromise the convention to split other software into their own articles. Esquivalience ^t 23:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 01:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of OS X components. Here's my solution. Unless someone digs up "reviews" of the Chess game, the only secondary sources we're using for this thing are secondary introductions to OS X that describe the pack-in software (like Calculator and the rest of the unsourced articles in that section of the {{OS X}} navbox). One such source is [11] or [12] (which has some background on its origins). If this is as deep as it gets, a few sentences in a list of this low-level OS X pack-in software would suffice. The closest we have is List of OS X components, which is a simple list right now, but I recommend that it be built out with one or two sentence descriptions (such as the one I just mentioned) since many of the other items on this list have little coverage, similar to the Chess game. This is to say that the other similar articles should be boldly merged as well. czar 03:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of OS X components. Czar's solution is the way to go. Surprisingly little coverage has been published on this application to satisfy WP:GNG. I sampled a few other articles on List of OS X components, and most of them are essentially in the same situation. (e.g. DVD Player (Mac OS), Contacts (Mac OS), Stickies (software)) If we fleshed out the list with the content that is reliably sourced in each of those articles, I can see a really solid article formed. Mz7 (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've left a note regarding this AfD at Talk:List of OS X components. Mz7 (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per preceding posts. Doesn't deserve its own article but can be redirected to one. I imagine not much has been published about this app because there's really not much to say about it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 12:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Wimmer Presents[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I tagged this as a A7/G11, but it was removed by another editor. The creator of this article and of Danny Wimmer is a paid intern working for the company. That, in and of itself, doesn't mean it should be deleted, but it explains some of the promotional tone of the article. As far as I can tell, the sources in the article are all primary sources or press releases. Still,I have no real stake in this discussion. I'll leave it up to the community to decide. Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand that this service is provided for information and encyclopedic use only. That said, it is not my intention to promote any product, message, festival, subsidiary, or brand whatsoever. I am a paid intern representing Danny Wimmer Presents and Danny Wimmer; however it is my clear intention to provide only information regarding the history and present projects of the company such as Rock on the Range and Carolina Rebellion. I will continue to monitor and make sure that the language I use is completely objective as to not promote any feature or product offered by the company. The idea is that Danny Wimmer Presents is given the ability to have availability on Wikipedia just as any other promotional company does, such as AEG Live and Live Nation. Danny Wimmer Presents will not include seemingly biased information and if someone in the community thinks that this information exists on the page, I would hope that an edit suggestion would be added to the talk page instead of a nomination to delete the page. I am happy to work with the community to edit out any information seen as biased, subjective, or promotional.

Thank you

(Spuderman (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per nom. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Spuderman left a message on my talk page seeking advice. I did a search for Danny Wimmer Presents before I responded, and I should have done the same before I weighed in here with a delete.

The article needs a serious rewrite, but the company appears to meet GNG: New York Times , an interview with some editorial in Pollstar , the primary trade for the touring/concert industry, the Sacramento Business Journal and the Sacramento Bee. I think I would find more references if I had the time to dig deeper.

Spuderman has disclosed his COI on his user page. Let's WP:USERFY this - I will suggest he work on the article/references and submit it through AfC with another disclosure in the edit summary.JSFarman (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now as there's still not enough solid in-depth third-party sources overall. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree Danny Wimmer should have been deleted, but the New York Times, Sacramento Business Journal and Sacramento Bee sources that JSFarman linked to seem to establish notability for Danny Wimmer Presents per GNG and NCORP. —me_and 14:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe with established references from the New York Times, Sacramento Bee and Pollstar, notability is not what is now being questioned, but rather the correct sourcing, documentation and objectivity of the article. I would agree that it is a good idea to WP:USERFY this to be worked on until it is ready to be submitted to an administrator for approval. I want to work with the community to make sure content that is making it to article space is purely neutral and objective. (Spuderman (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the sources identified by JSFarman. Significant coverage in the New York Times and the Sacramento Bee establishes notability, and the article should be improved instead of being deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 25 February 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.

Sudip Bose[edit]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 11:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Edge Limited[edit]

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

Small company that has yet to make a profit; evidence for notability is mere notices of approval (or lack of approval) of their laboratory and local news items from the region where their offices are. DGG ( talk ) 08:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm sorry, I think you are being unfair here. Although only a market cap of around $200m NZD, the company is large enough to be a constituent member of the NZX50 (the main index for the NZ Stock Exchange). That should make it relevant enough for inclusion. If there are companies that should be earmarked for deletion due to size and lack of profit, then might I suggest Snakk Media and GeoOp, which are less than $12m and $15m market cap respectively? PragmaticOutcome (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable at all. No reliable 3rd party sources as per WP:RS have coverage about it.Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 09:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Initially was dubious but I see a large number of sources in the article from the three major New Zealand print news sources; the Herald, stuff.co.nz and the Otago Daily Times so seems to easily pass WP:GNG. Mattlore (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the press coverage is interview-based pieces timed around company-generated posting with no critical evaluation --- classic PR stuff lacking independence. Only http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/853218 has real critical analysis, and that's of the treatment approach and hardly mentions the actual company. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it says in WP:LISTED, companies listed on a stock exchange are not inherently notable, but "sufficient independent sources almost always exist". It's not just listed on the New Zealand Exchange, but it forms part of the NZX 50 Index, and those are the 50 biggest stocks by free-float market capitalisation. Therefore, any lack of reliable sources is most likely a case of editors not having had a good look at publications that deal with the business sector. A good source would thus be the National Business Review, and the case in point is that most of their archive is behind a paywall. Searching for "Pacific Edge" and then sorting for relevance (their default search order is by date) returns a good number of hits, and I cannot see how this company can be said to not be notable. Schwede 66 18:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficiently large enough company to meet the minimum requirements for an article. Just needs better referencing NealeFamily (talk) 23:07, 26 February 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 FTL: Faster Than Light. !votes aren't exactly amazing but nom hasn't made any objections so redirecting. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subset Games[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Developer of notable video game does not make developer notable. Redirect to FTL: Faster Than Light. Soetermans. T / C 08:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FTL: Faster Than Light. The development section of FTL covers the foundation of the company. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support redirect for reason above --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as mentioned because this is still questionably independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 21 February 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. Michig (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solitaire & Mahjong[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Solitaire & Mahjong" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

WP:GNG, not notable. Looking through WP:VG/RS does not bring up any reliable sources. Soetermans. T / C 08:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. I can locate no substantial results among the various directory entries. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as topic of little interest and notability, as well as having little sources. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- Hybris1984 (talk) 12:00, 21 February 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. Michig (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Rock (actress)[edit]

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

Fails GNG and PORNBIO. Deprodded by the usual suspect without any improvement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, No evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 08:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this better satisfies the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the logic of my original PROD: No qualifying awards, only nonscene award is NN and therefore cannot meet PORNBIO standards. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The result was delete. The argument to keep is based on the view that it important enough that it ought to have an article. Unfortunately all the evidence for that is presence on lists, and presence on lists is not substantial coverage. The award which does not seem important enough to show notability, certainly not in the absence of other adequate sources DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International and Heritage Languages Association (IHLA)[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. No indications of significant independent coverage to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article should remain accessible through Wikipedia. It's a notable organization for minority language and culture groups in Canada. It's important to have minorities represented, even though they will not have as much coverage as other organizations. This article was helpful for me as I was searching for information on IHLA. I am a member of a similar yet fledgling organization and it's useful to see another Alberta Association's progress and changes through time, as well as their current status. Allegra002 (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Allegra002[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as the best found was trivial coverage at Books. SwisterTwister talk 18:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete other than a single article in the Edmonton Sun that is not about the organization itself, I can't find any independent coverage of the subject in books, newspapers, or other media. Doesn't meet the notability guidelines. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This volunteer organization has remained in the province for over 40 years. It is documented extensively at the Provincial Archives of Alberta and references can be found on that page. https://hermis.alberta.ca/paa/Search.aspx?st=Alberta+Ethnic+Language+Teachers+ It is a flagship organization for heritage language schools that began as a result of a Western Canadian push for Multiculturalism. Although the organization is small, it is historically important. It has worked with the provincial government to develop language curricula that have entered the K-12 systems. While one wikipedian has pointed out that there is only an article in the Edmonton Sun, I would like to point out that the references included in the article do not include the Edmonton Sun. Links with other wikipedia pages were made, but were deleted by others. Notablity of the organization must be checked against three historical names AELTA, NAHLA, and IHLA. Gingerrrr1972 (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided seems to be a list of publications by the organization itself, not coverage of it. I've searched the previous names and there seem to be very few results online about it (e.g., "Alberta Ethnic Language Teachers Association" returns a total of 9 Google results for me). Can you provide some links here? You might also want to read this: WP:N. Information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. If we don't have reliable coverage of the topic, than we can't create a separate page on it. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Furiouslyserne, not sure if I am allowed to address you personally. But I want to say hello and oddly thank you. YOu have forced me to find a list of publications that I had not previously seen. Since I am in the process of documentation, responding to you has been oddly useful. The organization is often listed in other government documents. Here are some of the sources that you requested.Sorry for the overkill.

City of Edmonton Declares International Mother Language Day at IHLA sponsored event http://blogs.uj.ac.za/languagesmatter/2015/02/24/international-mother-language-day-declared-in-edmonton/

Sister Organizations in which this organization is listed on other organization’s websites: Alberta Association of Multicultural Education: http://aamed.org/sign-up/ Canadian association of second language teachers which also lists the Saskatchewan Organization of Heritage Languages which has a Wikipedia page http://www.caslt.org/community/community-partners-provincial_en.php http://sahla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/NEWSLETTER-2013-WINTER.pdf The sister organization to the South, also on the CASLT page showing interaction with local politicians in their newsletter

Listed in government documents: The government of Canada search page turns up 1,480 search results: http://search-recherche.gc.ca/rGs/s_r?st=s&s5bm3ts21rch=x&num=10&st1rt=0&langs=eng&cdn=canada&hq=&q=International+heritage+language+teachers+associaion#wb-land Some of these results are: http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1363882822690 This one is listed under Josephine Pallard (also listed on the wikipedia page as a secretary of the prganization): http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2009/2009-02-27.asp?_ga=1.190578411.1157824103.1454611364 Provincial documents: https://archive.education.alberta.ca/teachers/resources/learnlang/educators/partner/ https://archive.education.alberta.ca/media/348417/enhancesllearn.pdf (discussed on document page number 47) https://archive.education.alberta.ca/media/486258/sectione.pdf Mentioned on page 4 https://archive.education.alberta.ca/media/7049139/ldc-report.pdf listed on page D2

I honestly cannot figure out what exactly qualifies one for secondary sources, but I would believe that being listed in government sources, qualifies? (I don't mean that sarcastically, but it might read that way). I seriously want to improve the wikipedia article. First I need to know that I get to keep it here. Gingerrrr1972 (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I have looked through all of the links you have provided and none of them have any significant coverage of this organization, from what I can tell. First, when you search the Government of Canada website, you need to use quotations to make sure that the organization is actually mentioned. When you do that, you'll get approximately 5 results (not 1500). If you look at those results, you'll see there's no actual coverage of the organization. For example, coverage of Josephine Pallard is not sufficient. We need coverage of the organization, not one of its members. Other links from the province of Alberta are not "independent", which you can see is an important criteria in establishing notability: WP:GNG. I appreciate your hard work on this, but I do not think notability has been established. I know the rules are a bit convoluted, but a key question is whether or not editors can create a page with content that is reliably sourced from the materials you've presented. Unfortunately none of these sources actually cover the IHLA in any depth. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am a believer of stating biases so I will begin by stating that I am the creator of this page along with edmontonihla. I am also a believer in Wikipedia’s processes which are designed to keep the pages relevant. Without the work of the moderators Wikipedia would be a collection of articles about people’s pets or advertising.

From what I can gather from the moderators, this page has one main concern which is the notability of the organization. I have spent time reading the notability criteria and I believe that I can address the concerns. The notability page states: No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools.[1] If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists (see "If it's not notable", below). "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it.

If I understand that correctly, the organization needs to be publically acknowledged. There are multiple criteria. These include depth, audience, and independent sources. While the majority of these sources are not mainstream media, these are provincial and federal documents. I would like to point out that this organization has been discussed 1) in getting material brought into the provincial archives, 2) in one of its members receiving the “Citation for Citizenship” in 2008 for her work in founding the organization, 3) multiple partnerships with other Canadian international heritage language organizations such as The Canadian Languages Association (http://www.canadianlanguages.ca/cla-regional-affiliates/), The Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers (http://www.caslt.org/community/community-partners-provincial_en.php). In the latter organization’s it also lists scholarships that the organization offers (https://caslt.org/resources/modern-lang/italian-awards-programs_en.php). 4) Although the organization is not “discussed”, it is “thanked” in multiple federal and provincial documents. Some of these are listed above. 5) The organization has been in the media, but admittedly these are usually not about the organization itself, but rather are about events that it is hosting.

Specifically addressing non-profits, the Wikipedia notability page states: Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: 1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. 2. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple[2] reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

As pointed out previously and within the links, the volunteer organization has been listed in multiple federal and provincial government documents. I would also like to point out that the organization has historical relevance as it was formed as a direct result of the establishment of the first Ministry of Culture who created the Canadian Counsultative Council on Multiculturalism to support and promote the changing view of Canada as a “multicultural country within a bilingual framework” as opposed to the previous “bilingual/bicultural country” with only two founding nations: English and French. This article is important, not only for its work, but for its place within the history of multiculturalism in Canada. Since multiculturalism is an evolving concept within Canada and really is only 40 years old, it is essential to document its earliest organizations Gingerrrr1972 (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Multiculturalism- sorry Gingerrrr1972 (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other Sources: https://books.google.ca/books?id=LXXQAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=International+and+Heritage+Languages+association+edmonton+alberta&source=bl&ots=W7dcDKodG3&sig=cjx5T1Pztc2zriNC0SYpmEKBzJw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjd6ebvt-HKAhVI4WMKHeA6Dhg4ChDoAQgaMAA#v=onepage&q=International%20and%20Heritage%20Languages%20association%20edmonton%20alberta&f=false

http://mobinajaffer.ca/language/national-language-strategy/

https://umanitoba.ca/faculties/education/media/Babaee12.pdf Gingerrrr1972 (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's got a big name but it's just an Alberta linguist association, isn't it? The former names it carried were Alberta Ethnic Language Teachers Association and Northern Alberta Heritage Language Association, as mentioned in the article. The latter also has a hyperlink but the link leads to an article which doesn't mention anything about the association. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Magoo, it's not a linguist association, it's a heritage language school association. So, I am sure you are aware of children who had to go to Greek school or Chinese school on Saturday. Those kinds of language schools are often called Saturday schools. In 1969, the then Prime Minister of Canada called the country a "bilingual and bicultural nation". This was done to appease French Canadians who were starting to realize that their language has less power than English. There was a huge backlash from Western Canada who argued that other groups were equally as important. Particularly vocal were Albertan Ukrainians. They fought the bicultural ad bilingual label and said that there was no way Canada was founded by two groups. As a result, Canada was declared a multicultral framework within a bilingual country. ONe of the first things that happened after that was the development of the ministry of Multiculturalism. One of that Ministry's first jobs was to form the Canadian Counsultative Council of Multiculturalism. It was a group that founded The Alberta Ethnic Language Teachers Association. The organization changed names three times and became the International and Heritage Languages Association that it is today.

The purpose of the article is document the organization's place in history. As of today the organization works on developing inter-provincally accepted language curriculum (The Western Canadian protocol for International and Heritage Languages), supporting heritage language teachers get credentialed so that they can enter the public school system and they celebrate UNESCO's mother language day. The fact that Saturday schools used to be held in church basements and are now part of a school system is the result of their work. They are often "thanked" in government documents. I never included these things within the article because they are promotional and I don't want to go against wikipedia policy.

As I understand the wikipedians' objections, it is because the organization is not adequately documented newspapers and the soul subject of articles. However, since the volunteer organization works closely with government agencies, it is mentioned there. I want to point out that wikipedia has already approved a sister organization called the Saskatchewan Organization of Heritage Languages (SOHL).

Here are two more published references which list the organizaton:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=FO2raeIR2oEC&pg=PA35&dq=International+and+Heritage+Languages+Association+history&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiM64SY8evKAhVjmIMKHbfFAgMQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=International%20and%20Heritage%20Languages%20Association%20history&f=false

https://books.google.ca/books?id=3DVPCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT695&dq=International+and+Heritage+Languages+Association+history&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiM64SY8evK

2001:56A:F3AC:E300:5917:C75D:2CAC:4697 (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Saskatchewan Organization for Heritage Languages and it has multiple issues. You do know that just because something hasn't been put up for deletion often simply means that it hasn't been "found" yet. I'm not voting because Wikipedia tends to be more lax when it comes to something educational like this. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: please can we have some comment on sourcing? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An additional consideration is its just having been named a recipient of the 2016 Linguapax Award.--A12n (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what sourcing means, Spartaz. Here is the award's website: http://www.linguapax.org/english/what-we-do/linguapax-award and http://www.linguapax.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/IHLA-Letter-of-Nomination.pdf Thank you Gingerrrr1972 (talk) 16:09, 22 February 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) sst✈ 03:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Paul Fiorentino[edit]

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

Not notable artist. Guy zaky (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. "Artist" is inaccurate; he appears to be primarily a poet. Anyway, I'm seeing enough small-press reviews of his books, interviews with him, and coverage of awards he has won or been shortlisted for, that I think he may pass WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep youngish poet who, as Eppstein says, can be sourced and appears to be taken seriously in literary circles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are definitely some writing tone and sourcing problems here — it was created at a time when our sourcing requirements were very different than they are now, and old articles admittedly haven't always kept up with the evolution in those standards — but for that very reason, when we run across an article in that camp, we have to take extra care to run a sourcing check, to determine whether the article is fixable or not, WP:BEFORE we rush the article out the door. In ProQuest's "Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies" database, I get 148 hits from daily newspapers not limited to Montreal, which means that there is enough coverage and notability to get this back up to contemporary WP:GNG standards. And considering the nominator's edit history — almost completely blanking Paul Cargnello as an IP, getting reverted almost instantly, then immediately registering a brand new username so they could reblank it and list it for deletion even though its problems turned out to be completely fixable, and then going straight for this — I strongly suspect that this has less to do with any principled concern for Wikipedia's rules and more to do with personal animus against Cargnello and Fiorentino for some reason that's none of Wikipedia's concern. The problems here are repairable. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 24 February 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) sst✈ 03:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cargnello[edit]

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

Subject is a very minor local artist and the vast majority of the purported links are either dead or apparently unrelated. Article reads like self-promotion. Guy zaky (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as, despite the current sourcing, this is still questionable for the applicable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I have heard of the guy before and actually have one of his albums, I fired up ProQuest fully expecting that I was actually going to have to say "delete as I can't add any viable sourcing to fix this". But I get 133 hits dating all the way back to 1998...which means I can salvage it after all. I think I need to start trusting my gut reaction instead of my second thoughts. Keep and I'll take a stab at cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I significantly improved the sourcing last night, so the article is now entirely keepable. While I acknowledge that there were some sourcing and writing tone problems in the version that existed before the nominator restubbed it down to almost nothing, the fact that I was able to revise and re-reference it so easily demonstrates that stripping it down to a bare assertion of his existence was not the correct solution to those problems: the notability was there, better sourcing for it was locatable, and accordingly just erasing the whole damn thing was not appropriate. And since doing all of that was the nominator's first Wikipedia edit ever under this username, I strongly suspect that they were motivated less by Wikipedia's actual rules and more by a personal vendetta (pardon the pun) of some sort against Cargnello. Bearcat (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The links are current and not dead and the musician meets the standards stated in Wikipedia:MUSIC. Littlefishbigfish 12:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep The musician/poet meets the notability criteria handily when checking sourcing on many fronts and could probably add activist easily. Noteworthyone (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage in notable newspapers and journals to pass WP:NM #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tasha Wahl[edit]

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

Non notable businesswoman, promotional content fails WP:GNG Kavdiamanju (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the listed coverage suggests better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Self-promotion of a non-notable individual.— TAnthony^Talk 06:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current references insufficient to meet WP:GNG; if reliable references are added, ping me, and I might change my mind.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrianov Herman[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE. Ref #3 is apparently to a print ad of a restaurant but does not mention Andrianov by name. Ref #1 cannot be validated because it is behind a registration wall. Ref #4 is a single photo showing a skater in a competition. Also, so far as I can tell (using Google Translate at this point), 2 of the sources are not independent of the subject (and so fail WP:IRS). I am also concerned because, if the 2002 birthdate is correct. then the subject is a minor. Shearonink (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as I thank the author for their efforts with making an article but this is also questionable for WP:ENTERTAINER and there's unlikely enough convincing sources for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 03:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting !votes by confirmed sockpuppets per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Mz7 (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Deleting Andrianov Herman is a very famous actor and a tv host in Russian federetion, all that i have listed in an article about him, is absolutely true. I personally have seen him on national TV and in magazines. He is a great actor and deserves to be on wikipedia. WIKIPEDIARUS talk 3:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep this article We should totally keep this article, this person is really famous and we love him! He is 100% eligible to be on Wikipedia. RUSSIANWIKIPEDIA talk 4:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Leave the article I can totally say, that Herman Andrianov (Герман Андрианов) is meeting all of the requirments to be on wikipedia and should be here! TheMoscowMan talk 5:12, 20 February —Preceding undated comment added 05:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HERMAN SHOULD BE HERE All Russia knows Herman!!!!! He was on national TV for several times, he was also shown in cinemas!!! We deffinetly should NOT delete his wikipedia page. RussianFederationWiki talk 5:47, 20 February 2016

Delete Obviously not a serious contribution to the encyclopedia with overwhelming claims, including figure skating championships that would have many sources if a 10 year-old won them. The four nominations above me also should probably not copy SisterTwister's sig style if they hope to be taken seriously and not as a four-vote WP:SOCK whose first contributions were to this AfD. Nate • (chatter) 05:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the coverage of the actor in reliable sources doesn't appear to be strong enough.

On a side note, what is with this common theme of the green-colored signatures in this discussion? I just thought that was interesting. edtiorEهեইдအ😎 09:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as G3:Blatant Hoax. I find no evidence this kid is an actor or has the talent to skate in a competition. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WIKIPEDIARUS for a list of the Confirmed sock puppets that have !voted here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 20 February 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. Sources have been provided which satisfies both MUSICBIO & GNG. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Swales[edit]

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

This article is about a non-notable musician. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Described in independent reliable sources, e.g. 1 and 2. Artist has released numerous works according to Trove search list: music and sound here and cuttings here. She has performed in musical theatre: see here. Satisfies WP:MUSBIO#1 & #5. Article claims national and international tours (criterion #4) but I haven't seen significant coverage on any of these, nevertheless she is notable enough.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources here and here and here and here and here. Interesting, eclectic life, gets mix of in-depth, folksinger-activism stuff, in WP:RS.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage. See also Totally Gourdgeous. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Ritchie333 (A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JustKay[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, barely a stub article and unlikely to go anywhere. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, clearly has not had significant coverage, and there are no good-quality sources (either present or available from my search). Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even nearly notable. When I searched for news about him all I found were comments at articles from some commenter with the same nickname. If the young artist will be reading this then maybe I'll encourage you by saying it's just WP:TOOSOON. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as clearly a promotional page. NO sources to be found whatsoever. edtiorEهեইдအ😎 23:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian W. Cordes[edit]

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

subject fails notability criteria Drdpw (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drdpw: May I ask in what way, or what specific criteria you claim this does not meet? 331dot (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Winning a single Competitive eating contest, albeit 5 times, does not equal notability as a competitive eater. Additionally, a Wikipedia search for the contest Cordes has won—the Cheese Eating Nationals—comes up empty, showing that the contest itself is non-notable. Also, the news articles used as citations in the article are from local papers, which shows that that Mr. Cordes's notability is very limited. There are wikipedia articles about several notable competitive eaters; Brian Cordes does not appear (to me at least) to be in the same class of notability as them. Drdpw (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, cyberdog958^Talk 01:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete at best and draft & userfy if needed as this is questionably solidly notable article for a solid article. NotifyingDGG for analysis which I know is always beneficial. SwisterTwister talk 03:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Can't establish notability -- Hybris1984 (talk) 21:43, 20 February 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 Allie X. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old Habits Die Hard (song)[edit]

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

unremarkable song KDS4444^Talk 14:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As it stands this fails WP:MUSIC, the song hasn't charted anywhere yet and the references are mostly WP:PRIMARY. Case of too soon.Karst (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, cyberdog958^Talk 01:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Allie X per the notability problems addressed above. I would, however, suggest to the nominator of using a different word other than "unremarkable" to explain the lacking notability of a subject, as it would suggest you're meaning that the topic is bad and it makes it sound like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, which now thinking about it I don't think you're trying to do. edtiorEهեইдအ😎 09:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just no independent reliable coverage to be found. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Allie X. Agree that it isn't notable, but a redirect to the notable artist would make sense in this case. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 20:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Play It Again (2013)[edit]

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

unremarkable album KDS4444^Talk 14:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request close of nomination with Possible Keep. The article is in far from good shape, but the EP and song do exist, and while I don't really like Becky G's music either, the nominator's argument is pretty much WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, this search did find some material to work with. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 20:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 25 February 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 as G11 as I tagged it as such (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RICHES Mosaic Interface[edit]

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

Advertorially-toned article about an online media platform, written by an editor with a direct conflict of interest, and sourced entirely to primary sources with not a whit of reliable source coverage shown. Something like this is not automatically entitled to an article just because it exists, but must be the subject of media coverage in independent sources to become eligible for one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jagat Singh (Actor)[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the notability criterion for people. Also doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER because their acting roles have not been significant. Opencooper (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt perhaps as note this was speedy deleted before this version was started and I encountered it both times at NPP. SwisterTwister talk 18:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 25 February 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. COI has nothing to do with the notability of an article. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Delight[edit]

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

Advertisement for non-notable apple cultivar, created by an account of the same name. Orange Mike | Talk 01:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will gladly change my user name to something else. I guarantee some fan of lets say Beyonce created an account with Beyonce in the user name just to edit the Beyonce article. I don't see this as a big deal. I created a new account and that is the name I used. I also don't see anywhere where there is advertisement. The article is about the apple, the tree and the name. This is a new variety of apple. There are other articles on Wikipedia about new apples that aren't being deleted, like Lady Alice, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Alice_%28apple%29. That article has less references and that variety of apple is owned by one company and only planted by that company. The Crimson Delight apple was available to all apple growers in Washington State and multiple growers grow that variety.CD (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If this is not independently notable to qualify for a standalone article, it could be merged to List of apple cultivars. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a variety independently notable for a standalone article? How did Lady Alice, Envy, Ambrosia, Cameo, Jazz, Opal and Pacific Rose get their own articles? I've added additional citations, added additional information and plan on adding more as the variety grows. CD (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Weak due to current quality of article. If it can be improved then definite keep. See jonathan (apple) for example. Aoziwe (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think we have any clearly defined notability guidelines for apple (or other fruit and vegetable cultivars). This is no less notable then other apple cultivars with articles. It seems that the user name issue is what triggered this getting sent to AfD. The article certainly should be improved the. Additional reliable sources may be using the formal cultivar name 'WA 2' rather than the trade name "Crimson Delight" (e.g. this article). Plantdrew (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Compact little article nice read. Funny thing, the more you search about a topic, the more Google turns up. Can take a few weeks. The editor should declare his/her WP:COI on the talk page so we can remove the maintenance tags. 009o9 (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The COI came up due to my original user name as it was the same as the article. When i originally signed up I tried multiple user names with no luck and since I was going to write about the crimson delight apple I used that as my user name. I have since changed it (after having to try multiple other names) but it is done. No COI. CD (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of 206 listed in the category Category:Apple cultivars. This one is likely middle of the pack for those that are listed there. It appears to be a commercially sold variety, which meets a certain level of notability. Without a wholesale pruning of the cultivar orchard with clear guidelines for deleting/keeping, this should stay. Regarding COI, how can there be conflict of interest just because someone uses an apple name for their username? It's an interesting username. I wish User:Crimson Delight would have kept it rather than being persuaded or bullied into something different. First Light (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 February 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 03:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeba Bhatia[edit]

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

I am not convinced that the subject satisfies either WP:NSINGER or WP:NACTOR. Their main claim to notability seems to be winning what appears to be a minor singing contest. At present, they have no releases and are not attached to any major label. Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 00:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons above. No third-party sources found, and only citations in article are iTunes (never a good sign) and some minor publication. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 01:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 01:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 01:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Without notability really being established, it looks like this is a kind of 'too soon' situation since this vocalist's career hasn't seriously begun yet. I agree with the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Million Fishes[edit]

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

Organization was never notable (very few third-party sources I can find) and no longer exists, so not likely to become notable. —Luis (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't Yelp edtiorEهեইдအ😎 09:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this satisfies the applicable notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 18:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Million Fishes "offical" website is a Japanese blog about veneral diseases Mduvekot (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This shows that the article is clearly a joke. In fact, maybe we should SPEEDY DELETE this as this must be a hoax. edtiorEهեইдအ😎 21:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.ticinolive.ch/2016/02/13/lesperienza-della-bellezza-nel-percorso-e-nelle-opere-di-daniele-bongiovanni-di-gregorio-rossi/

[2] ttp://www.laprimapagina.it/2016/02/12/daniele-bongiovanni-lungo-percorso-che-fara-tappa-al-vittoriano-di-roma/

[1]

[2]