Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 February	5 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 delete. Swarm ♠ 04:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lincolnshire Corporate Center[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Gamaliel (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Starting out an article with an equivalent of "We put boring ol' Lincolnshire on the map" pretty much throws this into unsaleable WP:ADVERT territory before the first sentence ends. A really large office park, but still a run-of-the-mill office park. Nate • (chatter) 05:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggests better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it were notable, this is too promotional. There are a few hits on Google News, but they don't seem to be more than trivial mentions in local media. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:39, 5 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 by Jezebel's Ponyo under WP:CSD#G5, so closing this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Cuello[edit]

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

Contested prod (though it should of been a BLP prod and the one who put it up never put a warning on the creators page) Anyway possibly non notable actor and singer with no reliable sources. Wgolf (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like possible sockpuppetry as the article was previously deleted in January and was made by another user. Wgolf (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: I've speedied the article as CSD G5. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:29, 4 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 merge to Michigan Crossroads Council. The article's subject is found to lack the notability required for a stand-alone article. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Water and Woods Field Service Council[edit]

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

Does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG, namely "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" AusLondonder (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into parent article per Scouting WPMOS.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that Districksyou mean Michigan Crossroads Council. I agree about Merge. We do not go below a certain level of administration and I think even Councils in the USA may be smaller than Scout Counties in the UK and we do not go that far there, sticking at Regions which are not even Scout administrative structures. In Australia we stick at the State level not Scout Districts. So I think this is a clear merge. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if this is questionably notable. SwisterTwister talk 02:27, 10 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. Swarm ♠ 04:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isis jade[edit]

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

Blatantly non-notable. In fact, I couldn't find a single independent source about her. Not much else to say, really; obvious attempt at gaining notoriety through Wikipedia. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:V and WP:N, and being nothing but blatant advertising. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and comment Holy puffery Batman! There's nothing anywhere as the nominator stated to show how they are notable. I moved the page to Isis Jade to match the MOS for a proper name as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clear example of WP:PROMOTION, subject lacks significant coverage by of reliable, third-party sources or secondary sources. Sources on the article are entirely primary and very brief. —Farix (t | c) 00:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete puffery. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - obviously non-notable. Blythwood (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly nothing for convincing notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 10 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 Procedural close. Bundling into Various 001 nomination. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Various 005[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. KylieTastic (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Related:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various 001
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various 002
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various 003
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various 004
delete-upon finding this on the new page feed I was unsure what to say. Now if there was a page that it could be redirected to, I would say that-but since there really isn't, delete. Wgolf (talk) 21:25, 4 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. Swarm ♠ 04:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exact couple[edit]

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

I saw this on deletion review as having been moved to mainspace from draft. I can't math, so I have no clue where to look for as to whether this is even notable, but: this is mostly unsourced definitions and proofs, which is either a WP:OR essay or copyvio from somewhere. And of course all of it is entirely impenetrable to laypeople, hence of very questionable usefulness to a general interest encyclopedia. Sandstein 20:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Exact couples are mathematical objects used in spectral sequences in algebraic topology. We already have a section on them at Spectral_sequence#Exact_couples. These were created by Massey in the 1950's, Here is the article that first discussed them. Since then, they have become an integral part of spectral sequence development: exact couple in nLab, class notes, "An Introduction to Homological Algebra" textbook. The topic, while high level pure math, seems notable and a search of GBooks and GScholar shows multiple RS. The article could definitely use some work in improving exposition and referencing, but the basics seem in place. A notable topic and a salvagable article suggest keeping it. That said, I can fully sympathize with the nom's position that this sort of article is impenetrable. Such is the case for most articles in advanced pure math topics like homological algebra. --Mark viking (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I too sympathize with the nom's frustration, but this rationale could be applied verbatim to any number of articles on advanced math topics. So, unless there is a movement to decimate the math pages, I'd suggest that these decisions be left in the hands of those who "can math." I agree with Mark's analysis of this page and think it should be kept. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems convincing for an article, no serious needs for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To answer the question in the nominator's second sentence: the right answer is probably MathSciNet, but Google scholar works well enough and doesn't require a subscription. There you will find approximately 1000 publications mentioning this topic. MathSciNet has 20 with that phrase in the title, most or all of which are probably for this meaning of the phrase. That's easily enough for WP:GNG, the only relevant notability criterion for scientific concepts. And of course just because you can't math doesn't mean everyone else has to be handicapped to your level of ignorance — we all have some subject here that we don't understand, but that doesn't mean the encyclopedia should contain nothing. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 10 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. While I commend Pizzole's effort to try to find further sourcing for the article, the rough consensus is that there isn't enough substantial coverage in independent sources to justify the inclusion of this film festival on Wikipedia. Der yck C. 21:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Optical Theatre Horror Film Festival[edit]

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

Weakly sourced film festival which has only been held once so far, in 2014. Article fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA with no in-depth, independent secondary coverage: sources provided are one apparently anonymous news agency article, and one "paid submissions now open for 2016" announcement written by one of the festival's jurors. I'm not seeing any significant coverage of the 2014 event. McGeddon (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Adnkronos] is a very trusted source. Bloody Disgusting too. What do you need more? --Pizzole (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The right article title is "Submissions Open For ‘The Optical Theatre Film Festival’" and not "paid submissions now open for 2016". --Pizzole (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloody Disgusting article is written by somebody closely connected with the event ("Full disclosure: I am one of the jurors for the festival."), so cannot be used to establish notability. The article needs at least two in-depth, independent secondary sources to meet WP:EVENTCRITERIA/WP:GNG. --McGeddon (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From one of the most important festival in Europe: [1]--Pizzole (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From a registered newspaper: [2]--Pizzole (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the deletion discussion for Pizzole's previous article about an Antony Coia project had Pizzole pulling a lot of blog-looking sources out of the air which were being freshly written while the AfD was underway, including a taxidrivers.it blog entry written by Manuele Berardi earlier the same day, as has just happened here. --McGeddon (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@McGeddon: Note that in the article there is a source to an old article wrote by Cinecittà/Istituto Luce, the hub of italian cinema and (so as written on Wikipedia) it is considered as the oldest public institution devoted to production and distribution of cinematographic materials for didactic and informative purposes in the world. It's property of Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze - Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali e del Turismo. It's enough? --Pizzole (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Added 4 sources from 2014 articles. The first is from Istituto Luce/Cinecittà, the official site of Cinecittà, the hub of italian cinema and (so as written on Wikipedia) it is considered as the oldest public institution devoted to production and distribution of cinematographic materials for didactic and informative purposes in the world (Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze - Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali e del Turismo. --Pizzole (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Cinecittà source is not WP:INDEPTH, it's just listing the films that appeared at the festival and offers no detail or critical analysis beyond that. The same goes for the other sources. --McGeddon (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not yet notable. Having a listing in a article in a notable industry source is not csubstnatial coverage. It's a mere notice. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best, perhaps not much for a convincing article yet. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the event has his importance and not only for Italy. There are lot of pics of the event, even with important guest as Roberta Gemma or Sabrina Ferilli. The Istituto Luce is not the only source. I've added more.--Pizzole (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:33, 4 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. Had this not been open for a week I would've speedy kept this myself, Most if not all laptops have a translation option (and if it doesn't then use Google Translator!), There's a few results on Russian Google and I don't even know anything to do with the Russian language!, Anyway BEFORE wasn't exactly followed either so wrapping this up as Keep, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7B (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable Russian band with no notable members and apparently not a single notable song. References are non-existent, article only has an "External links" section. If there are genuine Russian references, then they need to be found (by someone competent to do so). My own albeit limited investigation (in English) turned up nothing to qualify them as notable by Wikipedia standards. KDS4444^Talk 20:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a little unsure about this, because the band is not totally unknown; I found this (in the article) and this, which are not very detailed, but I suspect that if they have this level of coverage in English, they must have more in Russian. I have not the knowledge to find them, though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The band has made five albums, which indicates notability. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if this can be better improved from the Ukrainian Wiki. Notifying Wikimandia for Ukrainian analysis. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and ugh for the record. Nom has failed WP:BEFORE - You have to look at the interwiki links! The Russian article is clearly referenced with articles in KP etc. If you admit you have a limited ability to do a search then maybe you should not nominate articles for deletion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:35, 7 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. Swarm ♠ 04:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Wallace Clarke[edit]

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

Delete unreferenced biography of a mayor of a village of 500 people, no indication of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely notable and no signs of any convincing notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Local municipal councillor and mayor in a small town, thus failing WP:NPOL, and citing no references to get him over WP:GNG instead of NPOL. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 4 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 as I'm not seeing any convincing delete votes and this AfD may not actually go to delete. There are no serious concerns with this article at this time (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 21:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of authors by name: A[edit]

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

This request also applies to 25 other articles. Indiscriminate and unmaintainable list. There're more than 38000 articles about writers. GZWDer (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – These articles fully qualify per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Writers and subcategories therein. They are also functional navigational aids per WP:LISTPURP. The lists are not indiscriminate because virtually all of the links are blue-linked to valid Wikipedia articles. The few that are redlinked can be verified with sources. Also, the lists are quite easily maintainable, as evidenced by their neat and organized state at this time. See WP:NOEFFORT regarding articles that are not being continuously worked on. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and request close per the arguments above. Again, like List of Islands by name, there's no good reason that pages like this should be removed only for the encyclopedia to become less convenient for the reader. Sorry to say, but this is an exception where "Indiscriminate and unmaintainable list"s like this will have to come in handy. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 21:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per North America, and I would also request a quick close here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:43, 5 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. Swarm ♠ 04:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of painters by name[edit]

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

This request also applies to all 26 linked pages. Indiscriminate and unmaintainable list. For example, no new names (except one moving from List of painters by name beginning with "G") are added to List of painters by name beginning with "A" for nearly five years. There are more than 30000 articles about painters. GZWDer (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – These articles fully qualify per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Painters and subcategories therein. They are also functional navigational aids per WP:LISTPURP. The lists are not indiscriminate because virtually all of the links are blue-linked to valid Wikipedia articles. The few that are redlinked can be verified with sources. Also, the lists are quite easily maintainable, as evidenced by their neat and organized state at this time. See WP:NOEFFORT regarding articles that are not being continuously worked on. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and request close per the arguments above. Again, like List of Islands by name, there's no good reason that pages like this should be removed only for the encyclopedia to become less convenient for the reader. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 21:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article has zero value. Curro2 (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Curro2: Some of the 10,319 viewers of the page in January 2016 would likely disagree with the notion of the article having "zero value". Otherwise, why would so many people view and use the page? The high page views further qualify the lists functionality as per WP:LISTPURP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I viewed it. I still view it as totally unencylopedic. I would delete every list page if I could. I prefer encyclopedia articles that have substantive content, not 'look at all this stuff we found'. I could start a page on French painters of the 6th century named Francois and maybe I'd find a few entries to add to the list but ultimately the page should not exist. Curro2 (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the most familiar with the guidelines for these types of articles, but arguments against these pages like "I still view it as totally unencylopedic. I would delete every list page if I could. I prefer encyclopedia articles that have substantive content, not 'look at all this stuff we found'" seem to be in bad faith given the seemingly valid Keep arguments above. And again, I don't see what's wrong with making an encyclopedia more convenient for the reader thanks to pages like this. Sorry, but these "unencylopedic" pages may have to do. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 22:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should re-read WP:AGF before accusing someone of bad-faith editing when they disagree with you. Curro2 (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and I would've closed this as such as this list seems quite beneficial. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 10 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. I know Ive commented, but on checking the references once more I find it to be an exact copyvio from http://www.jmrab.edu.lb/index.php/1/front-page-news/author-of-the-week/831-roger-achkar. We can't possible keep copyvios regardless of other factors. There are very few absolute rules in WP, but this is one of them. DGG ( talk ) 08:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Achkar[edit]

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

I PRODed the page and the tag was removed. References were added by another user. I'm neutral on keeping the page but it looks as though the subject lacks notability. Meatsgains (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources cited in the article substantiate notability. The subject has been known to be a polymath (musician, author, philosopher), and not just an author. Two awards including an international literary award and the repetitive appearance on TV channels, in addition to starring on music works with famous singers cannot be treated unseriously. To prove this more, the well-respected pan arab web awards do not award prizes for best personal websites in the Arab world for unknown people, for judgment is built not only on design but also on content richness and subject notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samer editor (talk • contribs) 07:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC) — Samer editor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. He has a large number of followers on LinkedIn (https://lb.linkedin.com/in/rogerachkar): Around 42500, which is I strongly believe the largest number of followers for a Lebanese person. The second followed Lebanese on LinkedIn as per my research is an HR professional which has around 32000 followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editcontent corrector (talk • contribs) — Editcontent corrector (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The number of followers a subject has on Linkedin does not verify notability. Meatsgains (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ Being included in the list of the 100 most connected and viewed people in the world on Linkedin still means something: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/top-100-jan-2016-world-most-connected-people-linkedin-dorian especially when there is one Lebanese only in the full list!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editcontent corrector (talk • contribs) 13:23, 31 January 2016‎ — Editcontent corrector (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

While you are welcome to make additional comments, you are only allowed one !vote per AFD. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft & userfy instead as my searches found nothing better at all and the current article is still not solidly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you can understand Arabic language. If you can, then please watch: http://mtv.com.lb/Programs/Baynetna/2011/videos/Roger_Achkar/ and you will then judge if this man is notable or not. In Lebanon, internet sources are not the only reference, and not all TVs have net archives on their websites. I remember when his winning book 'Numen Lumen' was prominently displayed in all bookshops in Lebanon. You want to get convinced, then please get someone to translate the video for you. I am not sure how can a model be counted notable, and a prominent thinker, philosopher, musician, engineer and winning author is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samer editor (talk • contribs) 13:44, 4 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 17:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have included a study of Near East cultures that features Roger Achkar as a representative artist of Lebanon with some particular and interesting painting technique (https://iabproyectinterdisciplinario2012.wikispaces.com/Asia+Cercano+Oriente+Near+East+Asia). I strongly believe that this article should be kept, and one very evident reason is the inclusion of Roger Achkar on the site of the well-known Lebanese School 'Jesus and Mary School' as being a famous person from Lebanon along with very famous writers like Said Akl and Khalil Gebran (http://www.jmrab.edu.lb/index.php/1/front-page-news/author-of-the-week/831-roger-achkar). After all, a famous local school known by everyone from Lebanon cannot include an author of the week erroneously and without teaching about his books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paintingcritic (talk • contribs) 14:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Asking DGG to comment for his analysis as I feel this AfD still needs better attention. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Less than notable in a number of fields does not sum up to notability. DGG ( talk ) 08:30, 10 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 Anew Revolution. MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution (Anew Revolution EP)[edit]

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

This article does not cite any outside sources. The bands page (origin for this album) also has not established significance or notability and has been nominated as well. Garchy (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the band article per these sources. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 00:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also suggested delete at the band AfD because none of this is better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:02, 4 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 17:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anew Revolution which was closed as "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 12 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. Swarm ♠ 04:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Machine Shop![edit]

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

This article does not cite any outside sources. The bands page (origin for this album) also has not established significance or notability and has been nominated as well. Garchy (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as everything else was questionably notable including this, nothing else better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:07, 4 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 17:27, 4 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. Swarm ♠ 04:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rise (Anew Revolution album)[edit]

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

This article does not cite any outside sources. The bands page (origin for this album) also has not established significance or notability and has been nominated as well. Garchy (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as the band itself was also questionably notable, two reviews for this current album article but it's still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 03:06, 4 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 17:27, 4 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Long (producer)[edit]

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

Biographical article with strong assertions to notability, but only one of the sources mentions the author at all, and that source (ref. 1) has many comments suggesting that it might be a hoax or scam. I was disturbed by this edit [3] where an account connected to an organization mentioned in the article said that he was not involved in the organization. It looks like GNG is not passed and that all sourcing should be taken very skeptically. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with some of the concerns of Michael Scott Cuthbert. About the official page claiming he was not a member of the organization, the fact remains that Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and several other notable sources link Long with the event. I suggest we keep the page but change some of the language. I chalk most of the comments left on "ripoff report" or elsewhere up to simply a few upset people. Either way, internet comments are not reputable sources. My vote is keep DrSangChi (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The articles from Variety, LA Times and Hollywood Reporter are substantial enough to push him over the GNG threshold. CaptainQuality (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial? the Variety and LA Times articles never mention him as far as I can tell. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry. You are right about the LA Times, and Variety. But actually all the other major articles do not only mention him, but go into quite a lot of detail about him. The Hollywood Reporter article interviewed him as the producer of the event, and links him with the unite4: humanity event. Also the Yahoo Finance Articles goes into detail about him and links him with both events. The Presspass LA Article mentions him as well. This, I believe, when combined with the press from Variety and the photographs from LA Times, should be enough. -- CaptainQuality (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm still in the disagree camp, but these links will be helpful for others to decide. (fixed tiny typo in yahoo link) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current article is still currently questionable despite the current coverage. SwisterTwister talk 03:00, 4 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 17:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ per the sources provided. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 21:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per argument below edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 07:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no reliable sources that substantially discuss him, just press releases. The Yahoo item is explicitly marked as being a press release in conspicuous italics at the bottom of the page. This news release contains forward-looking statements ... I do not think we have ever discussed PresspassLA as a reliable source, but I read the article as a press release, for it goes to considerable trouble to mention him in connection with an event where known reliable sources do not. Nothing else is any better. This article is PR entirely, relying on PR sources. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With the exception of the very light coverage in the Hollywood Reporter, the references used amount to trivial mentions in insignificant or non-independent publications. JSFarman (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. I see no evidence of notability neither do I see how WP:GNG is passed. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:42, 8 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. Swarm ♠ 04:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jarod Joseph[edit]

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of an actor known only for minor supporting roles in television series and not yet for anything that would satisfy WP:NACTOR. Actors do not automatically get Wikipedia articles just because they exist; they get Wikipedia articles when they can be reliably sourced for something notable (such as having starring roles and/or winning a major acting award). He certainly might qualify for a Wikipedia article someday, but right now it's just WP:TOOSOON. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this better satisfies WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 2 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 17:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 8 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni II Natoli[edit]

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

Total confusion, a mixed biography of:

Giovanni II Natoli, son of Francesco Natoli Orioles and Giulia Lancia, who inherited the title of "prince of Sperlinga" in 1669, and
Giovanni III Natoli, son Francesco Natoli Alisia and Caterina Ruffo Scaletta, who became duke of Archirafi in 1741.

Neither has sufficient notability for this project. Article created by an indef-blocked editor with a history of fabrication and suspected hoaxes (see, e.g., this and this) and an obsession with Sperlinga and the Natoli family. Of the six sources in the article, one is a dead link and three do not mention Giovanni II Natoli (De Spucches 1924 covers Giovanni III). The two remaining sources are from 1757 and 1856.

No useful hits for either on Scholar or JSTOR, neither one is in the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, the national reference biography. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete as the current article is questionable as mentioned, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 4 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 17:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.--Yopie (talk) 20:58, 4 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 as it seems obvious this article is beneficial and has no needs for deletion (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of islands by name[edit]

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

This request also applies to all 26 linked pages. The reasom is simple: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There're more than 10000 article about islands in English Wikipedia. GZWDer (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – These articles fully qualify per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Islands and subcategories therein. They are also functional navigational aids per WP:LISTPURP. The lists are not indiscriminate because virtually all of the links are blue-linked to valid Wikipedia articles. The few that are redlinked can be verified with sources. Also, the lists are quite easily maintainable, as evidenced by their neat and organized state at this time. See WP:NOEFFORT regarding articles that are not being continuously worked on. Also, this copy/paste nomination states that there are 26 articles nominated (diff), but only List of islands by name has the AfD template on it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This list probably has similar problem as List of places by name: It is far from complete. It does have red links, but there're no reference to support their notablity.--GZWDer (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per the arguments above. I don't see any justification for removing a page like this only for the encyclopedia to be less convenient for the readers. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 21:14, 4 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 Procedural close. Bundling into Various 001 nomination. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Various 004[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Related:

Because the central issue is the same (does being a collection of notable songs automatically make an album notable?), I think it would be better to have one consolidated discussion of all four albums, but I didn't know how to set it up. ubiquity (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources - I can't find any info on these KylieTastic (talk) 21:09, 4 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 Procedural close. Bundling into Various 001 nomination. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Various 002[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The songs may be notable, but does that make a compendium album of the songs notable? No references are provided to demonstrate this album's notability. ubiquity (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Related:

Because the central issue is the same (does being a collection of notable songs automatically make an album notable?), I think it would be better to have one consolidated discussion of all four albums, but I didn't know how to set it up. ubiquity (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources - I can't find any info on these KylieTastic (talk) 21:10, 4 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. Swarm ♠ 04:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Various 001[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The songs may be notable, but does that make a compendium album of the songs notable? No references are provided to demonstrate this album's notability. ubiquity (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Related:

Various 002 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Various 003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Various 004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Various 005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Because the central issue is the same (does being a collection of notable songs automatically make an album notable?), I think it would be better to have one consolidated discussion of all four albums, but I didn't know how to set it up. ubiquity (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Converted into a bundled nomination for you and closed the other 4 AfDs. See WP:MULTIAFD. Natg 19 (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No source. The album doesn't appear to be notable. 64.134.64.190 (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources - I can't find any info on these KylieTastic (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just because something exists, does not mean it is notable. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wgolf: Pinging Wgolf, who !voted on the original Various 005 AfD. Natg 19 (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete-per nom, also all 5 of these should be merged into one AFD. Wgolf (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom - does not meet WP:GNG. No sources are available for these albums. - tucoxn\^talk 21:29, 6 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 Procedural close. Bundling into Various 001 nomination. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Various 003[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Related:

Because the central issue is the same (does being a collection of notable songs automatically make an album notable?), I think it would be better to have one consolidated discussion of all four albums, but I didn't know how to set it up. ubiquity (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources - I can't find any info on these KylieTastic (talk) 21:09, 4 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. Swarm ♠ 04:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pencil D Comedian[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Majority of the sources provided and the ones I found are blogs which can not establish notability. Although I found one or two reliable sources but are passing mention of him perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Having one a local comedy contest organized by a fellow comedian is not an evidence of notability Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 02:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 4 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. Swarm ♠ 04:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of the Clouds Tour[edit]

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

Not notable theatre tour in support of the artst's first release. The sources do not bear out that it received significant coverage with one review, date announcements and revenue for two shows. Fails the guidelines on WP:CONCERT Karst (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Tour of very popular Swedish singer Tove Lo. Clearly notable. Sources can be improved I agree.BabbaQ (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and see if this can be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 02:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 4 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. I'm afraid I did not place much weight on the keep !vote as it did not present an argument on the basis of Wikipedia's policies and guidance. SwisterTwister's suggestion that the Bugle might be mentioned in the Benwick article is a helpful one and can be considered as part of the normal editing process. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benwick Bugle[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine, it's just an occasionally published magazine for a small village. All the sources are primary, fails WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG as virtually no reliable sources and falls well short of WP:NMEDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's only occasional - could provide good level of information for this community. I see it does have merit.BenWick74 (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)— BenWick74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Redirect to the community Benwick's article as this can be mentioned there but this may be questionably by itself. SwisterTwister talk 03:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closure comment - I've undone the closure as this was closed a day early!, There's no consensus to delete nor keep atm. –Davey2010^Talk 16:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it should not be deleted. It is a local magazine and gives readers enough information which is well-sourced. In addition, there are no advertisement-like statements.--Egeymi (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Egeymi: Neither of these are reasons or evidence it passes WP:NMEDIA or WP:GNG. Also, it isn't well-sourced like you claim, since all the sources are primary sources- no reliable sources to show any notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with apologies to Benwick. I really mean that. I love and respect small-town newspapers and small, focused interest publications of all kinds. Reason is that by the publications own account, it does not run edited journalism, so it does not qualify as a newspaper. Although this publication exists, sources fail to support notability. Notability sourced to disinterested, reliable, secondary sources is required at Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:04, 11 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. Swarm ♠ 04:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BioPharm (Algerian company)[edit]

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

Sources exist, but the ones I located were all routine mentions and nothing that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. CNMall41 (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete as certainly questionable considering everything and simply none of this suggests even minimally better notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found only trivial coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 01:34, 5 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. Swarm ♠ 04:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time-Out Restaurant[edit]

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

A local restaurant, notable only for having briefly appeared on a segment of the TV show Man vs. Food. All other references are the restaurant's own website, and a local newspaper story. No evidence of significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft & userfy as there's no better convincing coverage yet. SwisterTwister talk 22:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see some Google hits ([4], [5], [6]), but it's not enough to count as significant coverage in my opinion. It's getting there, but not quite there yet. I think we need more substantial articles about it in non-local media. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:08, 5 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. Swarm ♠ 04:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sending Orbs[edit]

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

Article is on a label of extremely lacking coverage in independent sources. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kettel (2nd nomination). edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎 12:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no signs of a better applicably notable article. SwisterTwister talk 17:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable label. Fails NMUSIC#5, as the single artist to have an article has been deemed non-notable, and the other blue link is a re-direct to a peripheral artist. No independent, reliable sources found, fails WP:GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches don't show enough to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet either WP:CORP or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:05, 11 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 keep. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 14:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of female racing drivers[edit]

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

Per WP:SALAT, too broad in scope to be useful. sst✈^(conjugate) 10:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(conjugate) 10:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(conjugate) 10:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as complement to Category:Female racing drivers per WP:CLN. I can only guess why the nominator thinks it's "too broad" (or what "useful"ness they're contemplating), given that the category of the exact same scope has fewer than 150 entries and only two relatively small subcategories. Regardless, even if we had reached that point the obvious way to deal with a list's scope is to subdivide internally with headers or, if there are enough entries, to turn into a master list of lists with the subgroupings split into sublists. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Female racing drivers. Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. Also, allow time for potential expansion; this was nominated for deletion less than an hour after it was created. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:LISTN. See Fast Ladies, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a list that passes guidelines. It isn't too broad. SL93 (talk) 01:36, 5 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 keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present in the nomination. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Namebase[edit]

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

Namebase.org no longer exists. Shouldn't this therefore be deleted? FinerElements (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not temporary, meaning that Wikipedia can still have an article about subjects that have long since folded, wound up, or otherwise stopped existing. On the subject's merits, the page was kept in this deletion discussion about eight years back. In addition to those findings, there are plenty of paragraph-or-two-sized mentions of NameBase in books and journals, like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. They're not all stellar sources but together they do suggest notability, alongside existing sources and those found in the previous AfD. There might also be coverage in this Wired article, although it's weirdly cut off so I can't be sure. /wiae /tlk 15:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article currently seems convincing them enough. SwisterTwister talk 17:57, 4 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. I see no valid arguments for keeping. The so called "reliable sources" are obviously either promotional or have no significant coverage, as shown by many participants here. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nextiva[edit]

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

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

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

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

Promotional article for this company that lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is primary, passing mention, local, routine announcements and non reliable sources. (Wow, Nextiva participated in the Ice bucket challenge, let's put that in an encyclopedia).
This has been repeatedly built by paid promoters as has the subject of two previous afds.
The first was created by a now banned spammer Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva where there was overwhelming concensus for deletion, with only a few sockpuppets attempting to have their advert kept.
It was then recreated by an undeclared paid promoter who deceptivly posted it at Nextiva Inc. to avoid connectionwith the first afd. It then went to afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva Inc. which closed as no consensus despite no credible keep votes.
Now banned paid promoters also created articles on the company's ceo, Tomas Gorny. First deleted at afd, second was deceptivly posted it at Ṭomas Gorny to avoid connection with the first afd and was speedy deleted as a repost.
Not only is this company not notable, their agents are gaming the system in an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion. Help stop the rot and delete this page. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close and Keep. This discussion comes shortly after duffbeerforme's last nomination failed just a few months ago. At ANI, duffbeerforme was warned by multiple admins, such as @JzG: and @RHaworth: to stop gaming the system, after he speedily nominated the same article for deletion while an AfD discussion was going on (and not going his way)! When his speedy nomination template was removed and the AfD was closed, duffbeerforme moved the article and then nominated for a speedy deletion again! Others present for the discussion, including @Kagundu: and @CerealKillerYum: can also attest to this, as well as duffbeerforme's inappropriate behavior, in which he used expletives to address Kagundu in the last AfD. The OP clearly has an agenda to delete a well sourced article and it's obvious by his multiple failed attempts and gaming the system, despite several warnings to stop. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 16:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some Wikipedians need to get a life. I didn't even read the full AfD this time. This is just ridiculous; it's like there's two sides lobbying Congress. I'm not voting. Have fun. CerealKillerYum (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. duffbeerforme is refusing to give up. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete page is for self-promotion and publicity, lack general notability. The company and its founder is created by probable paid editors. It is created as some users feels that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Ireneshih (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given by your edit history I think you are playing the same book that the shill @Kwisha was using as reported by @duffbeerforme here. Blanking your talk page to get rid of warnings and flooding your edits to cover your non-constructive edits.A few hours ago you just posted in two AFDs within a minute and I wonder whether you even had the time to read the arguments for and against the respective deletions. I also doubt whether you really know what notability as per Wikipedia policy exactly means given your success rate in creating articles. Out of the 17 you have created 13 have been deleted.

Keep - @Dufferbeer's argument that the article states the subject participated in the Ice Bucket challenge is flawed and misinforming. The article doesn't mention this at all. The reference has been used to show that the president of marketing in the said company is the person named in the infobox. Granted the first version was created by a spammer but is the article notable? Yes for the reasons given by me and other editors at the first AFD here. Other Wikipedia administrators have stated that the current article is far much better improvement from the unanimously deleted version. I don't know what is it with this subject that could make a seemingly experienced editor break a Wikipedia policy after another just to get it to AFD or CSD. But what could do I know. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 16:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIt seems that the OP has nominated this article several times for deletion despite a general consensus to retain the article based on the reliable sources present in the article. Silverado60 (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't lie. No such consensus has ever existed. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is currently borderline, but there are content deletions in the history that includes the removal of citations. A quick Google News search garners the following RS articles and Huffpo is quoted, "Ooma Office might have been innovative 10 years ago, when today's giants like Nextiva and 8x8 were just finding their footing.".

Nextiva Review: Best Business Phone System for Call Centers
Nextiva shares vets’ war stories

The article itself is WP:ATD, and per policy, there is no indication of discussion on the talk page, just some sort of reprimand against the nominating editor. I'm not clear on how the nominating editor arrives at "Now banned paid promoters also created articles" as he provides no DIFF, nor relevance.

Disclosure I am a declared paid editor with no connection to this firm, ~~but I have done a couple of POV reviews/improvements for an editor who brought this AfD to my attention~~. I do not know if the editor is paid or declared. This is obviously an editor(s) conflict that duffbeerforme appears to be abandoning WP:AGF on and should be taken up in another forum. 009o9 (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, this was somebody who contacted me cold outside of Wikipedia for an opinion on the AfD only. I've advised them that if they are paid, they should disclose, per WP:PAID -- 009o9 (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On your sources. Huffpo is a namedrop. Trivially trivial coverage. 1. Not a reliable source. "Business News Daily's goal is to help entrepreneurs build the business of their dreams" 2. Like the Icebucket piece this is pure promotional puff driven by Nextivas own PR. From the same author and blog.

On the Now banned paid promoters. First Nextiva article was created by User:BiH who is now blocked as a "Spam / advertising-only account". Partial disclosure is availalbe on the user page. Further evidence is available via their [7]. No diffs are available due to deletion. Same with Gorny. Second Gorny page was created by User:Kwisha who is now blocked for "Using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes." No diffs are available due to deletion but evidence is available at [8]. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given Renzoy16's targeted canvassing above and the outside canvassing that's happened I am providing some balance by pinging the other participants from the previous afds that gave a !vote and are not blocked as socks. User:Sbwoodside, User:DGG, User:Jbhunley, User:Howicus, User:Kudpung, User:Richard Harvey, User:Brianhe. Missed any? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another article by a paid editor for a non notable company. The references may look impressive, but they are almost entirely notices and press releases, or awards that do not qualify for notability. The awards of for being a new company, which is what "fastest-growing" almost always means. In Wikipedia terms, the meaning of that is "not yet notable" "Best places to work" is a trivial award, and should not even be included in articles. An award from the communication company Polycom is an award from a business partner, and meaningless for notability. As a low point of absurdity, one of the references is for running Linux on one of its servers! As for promotionalism, the effort in the Awards section to show the importance of unimportant awards makes it clear enough.

Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

I think including "best place to work" is one of the attributes of an organization like this one. Not inducing WP:OTHERSTUFF but hey, other articles have this as you can see [here] and so I thought I could include it here too.If @DGG: feels it should not then I will gladly remove it. The article has nothing promotional in it as every bit of information therein has been referenced and informative about the organization for that matter.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 01:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are several hundred thousand of articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. But that's a minor point: I think the article unfixable; and I think the firm non-notable, so there's no point in trying to rewrite. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Joining the Linux Foundation is not a claim to notability nor is anything in the article. Since this company seems to be the focus on an onwiki PR campaign, once it has been deleted the title and Nextive Inc., which it has also been deleted under, should be WP:SALTed Fails GNG and NORG. Jbh ^Talk 18:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to distinguish it from a large number of other similar competing companies. 03:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I really don't understand this reasoning for this debate. I think Wikipedia is not about having competing companies being here or not.

Note to closing admin I think what everyone participating here has missed is the disclosed Conflict of interest that the nom has in the subject since by their own words "(Disclosure: Nextiva has been a licensee of some of my written work.)" as seen here. Whether the deal went sore is an off the record discussion.The disclosure came after several comments after which the nom has been falling head over heels trying to get the article deleted as seen here and here. On the other hand we have a disclosed paid editor who is the creator of this article and this to me appears like a COI vs a COI like we are lobbying congress as @CerealKillerYum: stated earlier. I doubt whether there is fun in this though. On one hand an editor solicits for votes in the AFD and then the nom comes and puts a notice that this is not a voting contest and while at it the same nom solicits for votes from other editors in previous AFDs to strike a balance.Do two wrongs make a right? Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 03:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your disingenuous misdirection and misrepresentation in defense of this advert is getting worse. Take a look at that diff you linked [9]. Then look at the quotation marks that surround that disclosure. Then look at the source being discussed. Scroll down to the second paragraph where the author of that source, Micah Solomon, makes that disclosure about himself. After you've done that I suggest you retract your libellous tripe. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kagundu: you have misread the diff you link re Duffbeerforme. The quote is looks to be a quote from the source to show why it is not independent. It would have been better if they had provided a link to the quoted statement to avoid any misreading but the "" set it aside well enough to understand. You should strike your mistaken claim now that you know. Jbh ^Talk 12:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about it @Duffbeerforme:. I read it as if you were the one making the disclosure. Next time tag it correctly as @Jbhunley: has stated above. Recunted my comment. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 13:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply repeatng what I said in the previos AfD: Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not understanding the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial networking site or the Yellow Pages.. Whether it is part of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not, DGG has said all that needs to be said already. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform. Whether the text itself sounds promotional or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption of notability. When the most serious and experienced editors such as DGG, and Voceditenore, who like myself have spent years combating some of the worst cases of misuse of Wikipedia for direct and/or indirect financial gain, it's probably more likely that our arguments are based on policy and accepted practice than those of editors who just come here to monkey with our processes, game the systems, and foster petty skirmishes among themselves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)are suggesting that articles such as these should be deleted,[reply]

Delete. Since my name was mentioned above. I'll give my opinion. I am just not seeing significant and independent coverage of what is basically a local privately held company with at most 200 employees, but an obviously very energetic PR department. Analysis of the references:

Mention of and soundbite from the company founder in an article about the use of robots in offices and industry in general, not about Nextiva or even him (Chicago Tribune) With respect to such soundbites attesting to notability of the person being quoted, this article", in the Columbia Journalism Review should be required reading.
The company taking part in the local Ice Bucket Challenge (Phoenix Business Journal). So what?
Brief announcement (5 sentences) of the company planning to hire more people (Phoenix Business Journal), unsurprisingly published the day after the press release at www.nextiva.com/news/2012-news-archive/business-growth-in-2012.html (can't hyperlink because nextiva.com is globally blacklisted)
Decent source (The Arizona Republic) but basically an interview with... ahem... Nextiva's Chief Information Officer, local business news
Interview with the company founder in Entrepreneur. The author, Carol Roth, has a disclaimer at the bottom stating that the Nextiva founder was one of her clients and indeed she produced multiple features for Nextiva's blog.www.nextiva.com/voip/author/carolroth (as per above, the link is blacklisted)
Article in Tech news Today which basically parrots this press release from Panasonic and even links to it. Note, in the ref the publisher is linked to Tech News Today, but they appear be not the same publication at all.
An interview with the company founder on the Linux blog, apparently one of the perks of paying to be a "corporate member", e.g. [10], [11], [12], etc. etc.
A joint press release from Frost & Sullivan and Nextiva about one of F & S's multitudinous "awards". This makes interesting reading about Frost & Sullivan's "awards".

Voceditenore (talk) 16:00, 12 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. Swarm ♠ 04:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Pearson (actor)[edit]

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

Lovefest for non notable actor. Bit part actor. Lacks multiple significant roles in notable productions. Outside of some hyperlocal puff he lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major (or sourced). duffbeerforme (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At least the portrait in this article looks Featured picture quality, but I can't say the same could be possible for the article due to the topic's lacking notability. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎 11:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet any of the WP:NACTOR criteria, and there are no solid WP:RS sources to be found discussing this actor. /wiae /tlk 15:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing particularly better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 17:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely doesn't pass WP:NACTOR, and nothing in searches to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:49, 11 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 Coptic Soldier. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 08:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Girgis[edit]

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

Blatant promotion for non notable manager/executive. Lacks coverage about himself in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from those he has managed.
This is one of two articles on this individual (other being Coptic Soldier). This was was created specifically to push their current projects, not as an encyclopedia article about the person.
Current borbardment of sources is:

About the band, not Girgis. Betrays a promotional intent in the Wikipedia article as Grigis is a co-manager.
Not an independent source. Says he has a dead guy as being part of his roster.
Primary
Him talking about himself, not independent covearge, does not verify claim in article.
Not a relible source. Does not really verify claim in article.
About Waters, not Girgis. No mention of Girgis. Does not verify claim in article.
About Waters, not Girgis. Only passing mention of Girgis. Does not verify claim in article.
Has section about Waters. No mention of Girgis. Does not verify claim in article.
Not an independent reliable source. Just his name in a list.
An interview of Little Sea, not about Grigis.
About Little Sea, no mention of Grigis. Does not verify claim in article.

This is promotion from a single purpose account. One of multiple accounts used to promoted around I Forget Sorry!
This should be deleted and not merged because it it spam and is very poorly sourced.. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Coptic Soldier. I agree with much of Duffbeerforme's commentary but I believe that a redirect would be sufficient – there may be wiki viewers that search for Luke Girgis rather than Coptic Soldier.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as mentioned as this seems best regarding the current questionability. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 10 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. Swarm ♠ 04:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rackinthecases[edit]

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

Multiple issues including fails WP:CORPDEPTH, overly promotional, lack of RS. Legacypac (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 06:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 06:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nearly even speedy material, nothing else currently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:23, 4 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. Swarm ♠ 04:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deepthi Kapse[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR has just made her debut upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 06:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 - This article makes no credible claim of notability. Inclusion in a barely notable film is not a claim of significance, IMO. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 06:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would've also tagged as A7 but because of the film, it would simply be a matter of who wants to delete as such. Delete anyway though as this clearly is not better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is about the best coverage out there, but it is insufficient to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. /wiae /tlk 16:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page has not been properly tagged with the AfD notice.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was removed by an IP editor here ,I have restored it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:10, 6 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. Swarm ♠ 04:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A and C Mall[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it is WP:NOTABLE. This would be more difficult as sources may be hard for me to find, but I couldn't verify it. Boleyn (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 06:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 06:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 06:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll give the creator of this article credit for at least not putting as much uncited information promoting the company as these type of articles do, but the subject itself is way too weak in significant coverage. This page here showed a slight bit of promise, but otherwise I can't see this being a notable-enough topic. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎 11:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, no third party refs, just not notable. - Ahunt (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete no inherent notability of shopping malls LibStar (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I saw this moments after it was nominated and it seems clear there are no better signs of even minimally better. Nothing else convincing for notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:01, 4 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. Swarm ♠ 04:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Fulton[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. I decided not to prod it but to take it here directly, as there are two sources on the subject: one interview and another one with the (presumably written by the subject) "best and worst decisions". They don't seem sufficient, IMHO, to add to the BIO requirements for serious, in-depth and reliable coverage. His company (Fulton Umbrellas) is likely notable (due to the tabloid/fashion coverage of the royal family using their products...), and at best I can suggest that this may be redirected there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are at least three detailed pieces specifically about him plus the additional coverage in pieces about his company and an RS (Daily Mail) which asserts that he invented the birdcage umbrella. That is more than enough for GNG in my view. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Philafrenzy: Which "detailed pieces"? This is not about him, but his company. This appears written by him. All I see is one interview in niche portal (Something Jewish, [13]) and an article, half-based on quotes from the subject, similar to an interview, in MoneyWeek ([14]). The latter, btw, is a series of weekly or so columns with millionaires ([15]). So in the end we have only two very borderline sources. I don't think that's enough to put one in an encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is the cumulative effect of the coverage across a range of sources, including that of his company with which he is almost synonymous, that ensures the GNG is met. I will grant you that only the Something Jewish article is in depth but if you add that to the rest I think it's sufficient in total. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If his umbrellas are good enough for the Queen then he's good enough for us. Andrew D. (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. His umbrellas do not convey notability to him, not without sources about him. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The subject is notable.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid rationale.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. There are three sources, Management Today, MoneyWeek, and SomethingJewish, which we can see from the tiles, "COMING UP FAST: Arnold Fulton, Fulton Umbrellas", "My first Million: Arnold Fulton", and "Interview with Arnold Fulton" are specifically about him. We have several sources which are more about Fulton Umbrellas, and these provide additional information about him. Edwardx (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Gryffindor (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTAVOTE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fulton Umbrellas as a compromise as the article is still questionably overall about him to suggest solid independent notability, may be best known for that. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 10 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 keep, the nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeseburger in Caseville[edit]

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

Fails NEVENT ~~and GNG~~ John from Idegon (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 06:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 06:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG. The topic has received significant coverage in state-wide and regional publications outside of the Caseville area, where the festival occurs. Source examples include: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks to Northamerica1000 for pointing out the defect in the nomination. I have struck reference to GNG. NEVENT is a restrictive guideline, much like ORG/CORP. In order to achieve notability, events need to have garnered coverage from outside the region. Michiganthumb.com covers local region (the "Thumb"), MLive Bay City nearly so. The Argus Press is the city's own paper. FYI, MLive is the shared website for all the former Gannett newspapers in Michigan and has regional editions for each former paper, including Bay City. Coverage in these media outlets does not show notability. Coverage in a Chicago or Cleveland paper would. John from Idegon (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The topic also meets WP:NEVENT. More sources:

"About the Cheeseburger Festival in Michigan". USA Today.
Here's a book source: Backroads & Byways of Michigan. The Countryman Press. 2009.
Here's a {{paywall}} source from the Daily Herald in Arlington Heights, Illinois: "You Have to Hand It to 'The Thumb' in Eastern Michigan". Quote: "...music and notable potables, head for "Margaritaville" (aka Caseville, Mich.) and its 10-day festival, Cheeseburger in Caseville (Aug. 10-19). It is as though Key West had been transported to the North Woods, with more than a dozen..."
Here's a mention on Yahoo! News, via Associated Press: "Floats and celebrants make their way down Main Street during the Cheeseburger in Caseville Festival Parade of Tropical Fools".

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Good job, Northamerica1000. Since we are the only ones here, I have no objections to you closing this as a speedy keep. John from Idegon (talk) 02:10, 5 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. Swarm ♠ 04:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infanta Branca, Lady of Guadalajara[edit]

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

She was never Lady of Guadalajara (in Spain). Modern sources just say she was a nun at a convent there. Not much known about her and what is known and referenced is already in the articles of her parents. Not sufficiently notable to deserve an article. Maragm (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bwuh? So there is a published dispute about who she actually was? To me that shows notability on its own. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think children of reigning monarchs should generally be considered notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, the title needs to be changed. If what is on the page is all that is known of her, then it can probably be merged (and apparently has been already) into the article on her father. Notability is not inherited, so being the daughter of so-and-so is not enough. I don't know enough about medieval Portugal to say whether this article could be expanded or not (I suspect not), but the real problem with these stubs is that left on their own they just become cluttered. We can summarise all we know in two sentences and yet we have an infobox, an ancestry table and two navboxes that altogether are much larger than the actual article. And with that I have just argued myself into a delete vote, but I would be happy with a redirect or even a name change accompanied by a slimming down. Srnec (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep (merge). I agree with Srnec's points just above. If this all we got, I think we should keep the information but we do not need a full article for that. The information is still important though, even if this specific daughter has not made much (that we currently are aware of), any child and any action related to one, of a king over here in Portugal in those days was an act of political significance (e.g. a daughter meant possible marriage-alliance) - Nabla (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this current article still seems convincing for an article. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If article is to be kept (which I don't agree with since all the info known is already in parents' articles), name must be changed. Infanta should not be used in title; name should be in English (Blanche) and it is necessary to remove that she held the title of Lady of Guadalajara which is not confirmed in any sources since she was merely a nun at a convent there, perhaps lady of the convent, but not of the city. --Maragm (talk) 07:51, 10 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 B roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme. MBisanz ^talk 13:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B2177 road[edit]

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

This is the road that runs over Portsdown Hill and a few other places. The prose is little more than "this road goes here, then here, then here, oh god I'm so excited I might just fall over", the bit about the Winchester Bypass is about another road, and the single source is an OS map that shows its existence.

The previous AfD closed as "no consensus" with arguments extending to "An artery that connects several municipalities is notable" (according to whom? By that argument the road connecting my local Pizza Hut to KFC and MacDonalds is notable) A search for sources reveals passing mentions about accidents and speed cameras ([23] [24] [25]) but even the more obvious search term "Portsdown Hill Road" and "Winchester Road, Wickham" draws a blank. I can't find any evidence of historical importance on old 19th century maps either. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This source tells us that this used to be an A road and that seems to be the A27. We usually keep A roads. Andrew D. (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't cite fictional novels as sources! The road over Portsdown Hill has never been the A27 from my map collection. And we don't have a policy for keeping 'x', only shortcut policies (like WP:PROF) where we can assume sources do exist. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That book was written by a Hampshire traffic policemen, who seemed to be writing about real incidents from experience. There's more details about the road here which indicates that it was part of the A27 before a bypass around Havant was constructed. Andrew D. (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as this is a B road which has yet to garner non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Perhaps we as a community should revisit Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/B_roads_in_the_United_Kingdom? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm struggling to find any Wikipedia notability guideline that it could possibly pass? Jeni ^(talk) 16:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "delete" is inappropriate because at a minimum the page could be merged (Editor Yamaguchi and a participant in first afd link to good discussion that probably led to creation of suitable lists). Specifically put an {{anchor}} into the highway's row in B roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme (or use the "id=" feature in wikitables to make a row anchor) and redirect to that. --do ncr am 06:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I generally only think a merge is suitable if a) there is content that can be migrated into the other article (not appropriate for a list) and b) somebody is likely to type the term into the "search" box. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About a) the relevant list includes a description field which is where the content can be merged to, it is highly suitable to merge material from the article to there. There's right now a wordy description (after I removed it from a footnote), which could be edited with material from the article. Or for another example, one of the article's photos might be put into a new images column in the list-table. b) It's quite likely a reader will type "b2177" in Wikipedia and will then be happy that the search suggests "B2177 road", as the Wikipedia search currently does. That could be could be a redirect to the B2177 row in the list-table, i.e. to B roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme#B2177. --do ncr am 16:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to statistics here (using the month before the AfD opened for a fair comparison), "B2177" would seem to get typed in on average twice a day, about 1/100,000 of similar figures to Facebook. Since two of those could be bot scrapers, perhaps it's more likely 0 a day. So from those figures, I would say it's unlikely to be a valid search term. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep preferred, otherwise merge/redirect. It is not a fraud, it exists, and there is some content/context given, and it is effectively a significant geographic feature (wp:geoland?). Note there is strange inappropriate footnote providing too much of article text in corresponding list article, for this highway alone. From before first afd, since 2 January 2008, as if there is something contentious about this B highway alone (and why is it being afd'd again?). Previous general discussion linked above had poll with most common response that B roads should be accepted or merged/redirected to a list. Have a new general discussion by RFC perhaps; this afd is not right forum.--doncram 06:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The long-standing conesensus is that roads at the A-level or better are notable; others should, unless they pass the GNG indvidually, be sorted in a list, I believe - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to B roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme as this route does not appear to be individually notable, but is suitable for inclusion in the list and is an extremely plausible redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a subsection of the A27 article. If the B2177 used to be part of the A27, then a subsection in the article covering that road can cover the B2177. Mjroots (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - this has now been relisted twice, I think it's fair to say that there is no consensus to keep. Jeni ^(talk) 22:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. There are no sources either for this article. Class455fan1 (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect at best as a compromise because it is questionably independently notable but may not exactly need to be deleted. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's just a random stretch of road, hardly the A3. Shritwod (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. As much as I like to document a record of every major/minor road in the UK, its hardly going to happen. Nordic Dragon 10:24, 12 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. Swarm ♠ 04:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of lesbian groups in Mexico[edit]

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

Not a single item has an article. Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages Staszek Lem (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 06:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 06:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 06:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. None of the entries appear to have Wikipedia articles, so does not qualify as a useful list for Wikipedia's purposes (e.g. per WP:LISTPURP). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a directory. It's a list of no links to other Wikipedia articles. SL93 (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree there's a WP:NOTDIRECTORY problem. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above editors, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:46, 11 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 merge to Environment variable. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unset[edit]

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

This article's topic is just about the most trivial command in the Unix shell. While Unix shells are the topic of multiple independently published manuals as desired by WP:NSOFT, I doubt that unset is. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just not sure anyone could come up with anything about this that wouldn't be command line help WP:NOTMANUAL Yasth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NSOFT is an essay and so insignificant. The relevant guideline is WP:GNG which this passes. The worst case would be merger with another page such as environment variable; there's no case for deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the significant coverage, then? Which book or other source devotes more than a paragraph to this command? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "significant" means reasonably comprehensive. Which is just about every basic unix book. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - several paragraphs about unset here - clearly it's not quite as trivial as one might assume. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an open wiki. WP:GNG says that "sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability" per WP:RS, not that someone, somewhere found a corner case in Bash and wrote it up anonymously. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is a POSIX base command. Schily (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draft & userfy with restarting later as I'm not entirely convinced of actually keeping this, as although it may have potential, there's nothing for signs of a currently better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to environmental variable as described above. There is not much that can be written here, but it is certainly a notable concept. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep/merge nontrivial verifiable information. Setting/unsetting must be in one place, for convenience. And this would be "env var" page. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we don't need articles on every single OS command, especially commands like this one whose functionality is relatively trivial. Are we going to create articles for every command of every operating system. On my Mac, pressing TAB tells me I've got roughly 3627 commands, we don't need articles on them all. And what about commands for other (less commonly used) operating systems, such as VMS, MVS, VM/CMS, VSE, TPF, OS/400, Netware, VME, OS 2200, MCP, BS2000/OSD? The number of distinct OS commands, across all operating systems, must number into the tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands. SJK (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to environment variable or delete. I completely agree with SJK and Qwertyus. Our coverage of UNIX commands is bordering on indiscriminate, if not already there. We can't dedicate an article to every single minor command just because it exists and is part of a standard. This is inherited notability. UNIX manuals are just that – manuals. How are we going to create an that doesn't violate WP:NOTHOWTO when our only sources are how-to guides? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Environment variable, oppose deletion Here are sources about the subject:
1. Liu, Yukun; Yue, Yong; Guo, Liwei (2011). UNIX Operating System: The Development Tutorial via UNIX Kernel Services. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. p. 253. ISBN 3642204325. Retrieved 2016-02-12.
2. Winsor, Janice (2001). Solaris 8 Advanced System Administrator's Guide. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. p. 437. ISBN 0130277037. Retrieved 2016-02-12.
3. Cooper, Mendel. Advanced Bash Scripting Guide. ru:Рипол-классик. ISBN 5879734420. Retrieved 2016-02-12.
4. Kiddle, Oliver; Stephenson, Peter; Peek, Jerry (2005). From Bash to Z Shell: Conquering the Command Line. New York: Apress. p. 289. ISBN 1430204028. Retrieved 2016-02-12.
Cunard (talk) 07:12, 12 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 Guerillero under A7 (non-admin closure).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Groton Town Police Explorers Post 571[edit]

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

Non-notable Police Explores Post. Per Wikipedia guidelines should be redirected to Law Enforcement Exploring. reddogsix (talk) 02:35, 4 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 Mayday (TV film) redirected to this article. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mayday (film)[edit]

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

Apparently the subject of this article is identical to that of Mayday (2005 TV film). There is no need for Wikipedia to have two articles about the exact same film. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect - From what I can tell from the histories of these two articles, a stub version of "Mayday (2005 film)" was moved to "Mayday (film)" here back in Spring of 2014. It was expanded upon for a while, then Bzuk (talk · contribs) move "Mayday (film)" to "Mayday (2005 TV film)" here. But instead of leaving the redirect alone, Bzuk replace the redirect with a paste of the full original article. I'm assuming this was accidental and the solution is to simply revert back to the most recent move action. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 02:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tokyogirl79 has the better solution below. Mayday (film) should be the final destination for the subject. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Uncle Milty. The two pages are almost exactly the same (the only differences being paragraph spacing, minor reference formatting and a stub tag), so no substantive content will be lost by redirecting. /wiae /tlk 04:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 06:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd actually endorse moving the 2005 film back to this title. A quick search on IMDb shows that there are television shows with this name, but only one short film with this title. A search for the short doesn't bring up anything to show that the film would pass NFILM any time soon. There's another film by the name Maydays, but that'd be under a different title. I think that the best option here would be to move the 2005 film back to this title and add a hatnote that directs users to the disambiguation page for mayday. If there ever are other films with the same or similar titles that gain articles, they can always be directed to the disambiguation page that way. Basically, despite the assertion that there are other films, I can only find two with similar titles and neither one offhand seem notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, so they likely wouldn't be on the disambiguation page anyway. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How the serious hell did this happen? Hahahahaha. Anyway, Speedy move the "Mayday (2005 TV film)" to here per above. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎 11:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all the above, the "move" was to actually switch the articles, and I assumed that the earlier article which I had worked on independently would disappear, apparently not. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I suppose as this is currently questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 10 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 02:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastien Ibeagha[edit]

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

Re-creation of article that was previously deleted per WP:PROD. Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. That concern remains valid. – Michael (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the article. I thought that the Danish and Icelandic clubs were first division clubs, which I now know they are not. I definitely did not think he qualified under WP:GNG, but I seem to be incorrect about his meeting the requirements of WP:NFOOTBALL. He will almost certainly see some playing time, but for the same reasons that guys like Mael Corboz don't have pages yet, then you would seem to be correct in deleting the page. Padsquad2010 (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Could be notable in the future and no problems recreating if he plays in the MLS, but a case of WP:TOOSOON at best at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL --Sabri76'^talk 21:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Even the author (Padsquad2010) admits that the subject of the article is not yet notable. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 10 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. Swarm ♠ 04:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Abbasi[edit]

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

I had a prod up-but a ref was added. Anyway, unsure if this guy is notable at all. Wgolf (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: This should be a PROD BLP. Delta13C (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLPs need to have good sources, this has none. πr² (t • c) 05:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not even close to WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - couldn't be prodded due to the reference (regardless of the utter ridiculousness of that single reference). But searches do not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and they certainly don't pass WP:CREATIVE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:37, 11 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 A7 and this is an WP:IAR close considering the article is now deleted thus AfD is not needed anymore (NAC). Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 04:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wegus Infotech[edit]

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

Spam, non notable company The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-really not needed as a AFD as it is a new article-but yes speedy delete. Wgolf (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a new company, but every company starts with no brand. So i would like to keep this page so that people can get to know about it

Delete. Fails WP:CORP due to a complete lack of coverage from reliable sources. /wiae /tlk 03:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I have speedy tagged as A7. SwisterTwister talk 03:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely nn. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:00, 4 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.