Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 10 July 12 July >

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 merge to Transportation in Virginia. Consensus is this dead project does not meet the requirements for article-level coverage. Consensus is to merge the main article and to delete the station stubs and other associated pages.  Sandstein  07:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transdominion Express[edit]

Transdominion Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Formerly proposed rail system that never even got a bill approved in the state legislature. All of the relevant content can be satisfied with a sentence or two added to Northeast Regional#Virginia service, which is where the planning energy went instead.

Additionally, there are several articles on proposed stations for the system. While former, existing, or definitely-planned stations are pretty much always notable, these are stations that never existed other that as a dot on a map. (There were likely former stations in these towns which would be worthy of an article, but without any historical information currently in the articles, it would be just as easy to create them from scratch in the future). I have not nominated several articles which are past or planned Amtrak stations and thus have more information available.

There are also seven templates and two categories that are wholly dependent on this article existing, and are clearly not needed without it. I can file a separate TfD and CfD if necessary, but it seems that these 9 are linked to this article's fate:

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the TDX project died in 2013 or 2014 it looks like. Consider remaking if there is talks that surface again in the future. Quidster4040 (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bedford, Farmville, and Christiansburg (which I just struck from the nomination) were stops on the Mountaineer and Hilltopper. That made basic information about them extremely easy to find compared to station locations that never had Amtrak service. I've updated those articles with historic photos and cited information. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect in that case, as there's certainly nothing to suggests its own actually convincing article, and all of this, is simply best relinked to the other article; nothing else convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was covered in reliable sources at the time, and if it was notable then, it's notable now. Smartyllama (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of rail project proposals get a lot of press and go exactly nowhere. They're not inherently notable or significant on their own. This one never got approved by an political body, never moved beyond the study stage at a planning agency, and never even got much press. That's telling from the current state of the article - most of the current text is information about the Northeast Regional service that happened instead of this project, plus a list of existing transportation services only tangentially related to the article. Compare to, for example, Pike Transit Initiative, which has much more well-cited information about the history of the project (that is not best located as background in another article). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AccessMyLibrary[edit]

AccessMyLibrary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PRODed in 2015 by Piotrus and my own searches now have still found nothing convincingly substantial, there are mentions but still not at the levels of confident independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability. Softpedia coverage with download links is not independent and the piece is clearly regurgitated PR, and the Eastern Kentucky University ref is a how-to article/incidental mention, not significant coverage. A search turned up blog entries and more PR, but no significant WP:RS coverage. A redirect to Gale (publisher) could also be an option.Dialectric (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing GNG—my BEFORE found nothing I could cite, certainly nothing establishing significant, independent, reliable coverage—and the article does not otherwise merit retention. Rebbing 06:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim A Ainslie[edit]

Tim A Ainslie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searches have found no actual substantial coverage, only a few local news mentions, and I basically consider this A7 material, and I would've also explored PROD. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as I could not find a single instance of reliable, independent, nontrivial coverage—much less enough to meet GNG. Rebbing 07:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SwisterTwister, you say you consider this A7 material and "would've also explored PROD"—but you brought it here instead. Why? Rebbing 07:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of not risking a PROD removal. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleted under A7. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM 22:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Underkript[edit]

Underkript (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I would've frankly PRODed instead as my searches have found only a few, of course, expected local mentions but nothing at all close to actual coverage. SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Civilization: Beyond Earth - Rising Tide[edit]

Civilization: Beyond Earth - Rising Tide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I actually don't agree with removing this page. This nomination was made to stop an edit war. My reasons for keeping it will be made below, and the approprate people will be contacted. Oldag07 (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 11. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- (Note I am the creator of this AFD) I started this page to shave off an edit war. So far, the people who want to turn this page to a redirect to Civilization: Beyond Earth have not used this formal process of discussing the deletion of this page. Instead they have turned this page to a redirect without any debate. This page was originally created, and then moved to the "draftspace". It stayed there for a while until several edits were made a few months later and it passed an WP:AFC. The main arguments for turning this page into a redirect is the fact that it is an "expansion pack" and a "DLC". First off there is an entire category for expansion packs Category:Video game expansion packs so why is this page any different. On top of this, every single Civilization game expansion has a separate page. The second argument is that this is a DLC only expansion pack. There are several DLC only expansion packs on Wikipedia. Take for example Mass Effect 2: Lair of the Shadow Broker. I quote one of the people who reverted the page into a redirect "I am fine with DLC having their own articles, if they have got a lot of press coverage." The last argument, and in my mind the strongest argument, for this page to be removed is the fact that it doesn't feel "complete". To be honest, I am way past my wikipedia prime, and really don't want to put a lot of time making it a "good article". This topic does have a significant amount of press, and it is notable. We should see it for its WP:POTENTIAL. Removing it from the mainspace only discourages editors from adding to it. Oldag07 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • History - A short summary of the history of the article:
  1. Created October 18, 2015 by Oldag07
  2. Redirected, unredirected then moved to Draftspace by AdrianGamer on October 19, 2015
  3. Worked on in draftspace by Oldag07 between October 19 and 25, 2015
  4. Left unedited since October 25, 2015, then submitted to AfC by RHaworth on June 17, 2016
  5. Accepted at AfC on June 17, 2016 by Zppix and moved to mainspace
  6. Redirected by on June 21, 2016 by AdrianGamer
  7. Unredirected on July 9, 2016 by Oldag07
  8. Re-redirected on July 10, 2016 by SwisterTwister
  9. Re-unredirected on July 11, 2016 by Oldag07, who also started this AfD procedurally but with a !vote to keep in order to stop the redirect-warring
My opinion? It should have been left in draftspace where it was from October-2015 and until RHaworth decided to pull it out of the backstore in June-2016; everybody was content and working on other things. Thus, back to draftspace if there is still desire to work on it, or redirect it if not. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I respectfully disagree. There has been plently of press for the game, I just added 3 more sources. It fits the notability requirements. It is consistant with the rest of the civilization pages. Remove his one, and you should logically remove all Civilization expansion set pages, and probably all the Sims and Mass Effect expansion pages also. Oldag07 (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment- I just made a huge expansion to the gameplay section. It should keep it out of the draftspace, though I might admit, it needs a lot of editing. Oldag07 (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, Merge/Redirect otherwise I was going to state "Merge" but the one thing this article shows is that there was reception for the expansion (its just not expanded out in prose), which I think is a minimum requirement to justify it. Searching around google news, it looks like there's also a handful of development articles from ca. May 2015 that could be pulled into this [1]. But that all said, Civilization: Beyond Earth has plenty of space to expand that merging this into that won't bust the size aspect. --MASEM (t) 00:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, the point is to decide what to do with the article: delete, keep, or some other result? Redirect, merge and draftify are all valid AfD outcomes. In theory per BRD the onus of starting the discussion should have been on the reverted redirecter. It's what Czar has been doing as well -- redirect, and if reverted, take it to AfD. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The D in AfD changed from "deletion" to "discussion" (in spirit) when SK#1 changed to no longer prohibit noms that openly advocated for redirection instead of deletion. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 06:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Half of the article's references are just Metacritic and reviews, but the series normally does this for expansions. I say keep, but it could use alot of improvements. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 12:40 am, Today (UTC−4)
  • Keep: I redirected it twice mainly due to the article's lack of content. Why do we need to create a separate page when majority of the information have already been covered in its parent article? I have never doubted the notability of the article, it is just that splitting off the page at that time was unnecessary. Since you have significantly expanded the section, it does not repeat the Beyond Earth subsection anymore, so my reasons in the Beyond Earth talk page aren't accurate anymore. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, it should be covered in depth in the main article. Yes, it is independently notable. It has more independent reviews from our vetted, reliable sources than most indie/mobile games. There is more than enough content to write a decent article on this subject. AfD is not cleanup—it is to establish whether sufficient sourcing exists, and it patently does, regardless of what is currently written and whoever (if anyone) will come to write it. Feel free to TNT the parts that are out of general content/verifiability compliance. This is actually a Wikipedia:Speedy keep candidate since the nominator did not advance a deletion rationale. czar 06:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way I see it, the nominator opened the AfD based on two other editor's rationale and intention to redirect. I'd rather let the discussion run its course to provide some sort of resolution to the redirect-warring. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would seem that one of the reverters, AdrianGamer, seems to have had a change of heart after the recent expansion of he article. SwisterTwister hasn't chimed in yet though. Oldag07 (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TimeApp[edit]

TimeApp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searches have found no better coverage at all and I'll note this was actually deleted twice at Sweden Wiki, there's simply nothing convincing of the needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Research Partnership[edit]

Research Partnership (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I would've frankly PROded too but as that may be removed, here we are; my own searches have found nothing at all and the listed sources are not convincing of independent substantial notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - A quick search turns up RS but those sources are not about the subject but rather the terms "research partnership", thus lacking notability. Meatsgains (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Admittedly, with such a generic name it is difficult to do reasonable searches. However, I find nothing that shows notability under wP:corp. LaMona (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steph Hodgins-May[edit]

Steph Hodgins-May (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate in an election. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL in and of itself -- if you cannot make a strong and well-sourced claim that she was already eligible for a Wikipedia article under some other criterion besides her candidacy, then she has to win the seat, not just run for it, to attain notability from the election itself. But nothing here constitutes strong evidence of preexisting notability. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Unsuccessful candidate for the Australian House of Representatives. Nothing outside her campaign that confirms notability. Meatsgains (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be as well to slow this down until the count is finalised. It is still possible that her votes in 3rd position will grow to exceed that of the ALP in 2nd position. If so, she will then be elected on ALP preferences. If she stays 3rd, her preferences will get the ALP candidate elected. It is still very fluid. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unelected politicians are not notable at this level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not elected and fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although let the AfD run its course (and don't WP:SNOW) because it's not completely impossible she could win in late counting, in which case this would become an instant keep. But there's no claim to notability in the extremely likely event she loses. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unelected politician. While I personally feel that WP would be enriched by allowing such candidate bios, consensus on the matter is clear. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amri Aswono Putro[edit]

Amri Aswono Putro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searches have found only mere mentions as part of the company position, but no actual convincing for the independent notability; not currently mentioned at the company's article suggests that the CFO is not as significant as the other positions thus merge is not an option. SwisterTwister talk 21:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. Simply a businessman with no specific notability. LaMona (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to List of fictional crossovers#Television by TVBuff90 (talk · contribs). Any discussion about the fate of that list should happen there. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of television crossovers[edit]

List of television crossovers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article contains no references and I believe is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:PLOT and WP:FANCRUFT. Any notable information about crossovers would be mentioned in the individual articles about the series itself; housing the various unrelated crossovers into a list seems completely unnecessary. Article is also redundant of List of fictional crossovers (which is problematic article as well). Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Azurée Lyman[edit]

Azurée Lyman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Originally tagged for speedy, the tag was removed by an editor who supplied sources, but the sources are not sufficient to establish notability. ubiquity (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's nothing in the article as it stands to establish notability and nothing useful turns up in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete total lack of reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This could possibly still be argued as a speedy deletion, as there's simply nothing out there that would show that she's notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I wish her well, but she just doesn't pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia at this point in time. I know that indie directors and creative persons typically don't gain any or enough coverage to pass GNG and they won't get the type of coverage that someone like Quentin Tarantino would get, but they still require coverage all the same. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like one of the two editors active on the page also created Jaja Nwokeabia, which also has issues with notability. I'm also concerned at how promotional the article reads. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being WP:TOOSOON for this upcoming filmmaker. Perhaps after more projects and with media coverage, this topic might be reconsidered. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Miller (ice hockey, born 1971)[edit]

Andrew Miller (ice hockey, born 1971) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Montgomery (ice hockey)[edit]

Mike Montgomery (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Swear to God, if it wasn't likely a civility violation, I'd write WP:DOLOVISCREATEDIT as an essay setting forth a new deletion ground. As with several hundred other utterly NN articles and invalid redirects that led to a community ban against creating new articles/redirects, there's been no criteria in any iteration on Wikipedia under which the subject would achieve notability. With an average collegiate career and an ephemeral cup of coffee as a minor leaguer, fails NHOCKEY and certainly fails the GNG. Ravenswing 19:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not pass NHOCKEY and the best I found toward GNG is this, which is not nearly enough. Rlendog (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarge Boyd[edit]

Sarge Boyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A local teacher being written up in the local paper a few times does not notability make. Neither does winning non notable professional awards. His local community should be proud of him. That is not a reason to have a Wikibio. John from Idegon (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be local notability only. No evidence provided to indicate greater significance beyond his own community. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A worthy citizen, but does not achieve notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete: article looks like it was written by someone close to or proud of Boyd, but it has no reliable, significant sources. No evidence of notability. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. COI posting for totally nn actress Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stacee Myers[edit]

Stacee Myers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor lacking non-trivial support. Has been in a couple of movies, but in uncredited rather invisible roles. (e.g., pedestrian) Should have been CSD'd. Article written by COI as an advertisement for pre-production series. reddogsix (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Technical close. WP:MFD is over there. Evaluating the SPI as I'm typing this. Courcelles (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Isomorphic/Minions_of_the_Church[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    User:Isomorphic/Minions_of_the_Church (edit | [[Talk:User:Isomorphic/Minions_of_the_Church|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Poorly sourced, defamatory, ancient hate page against individual who left Wikipedia 10 years ago. Serves no purpose in 2016. Violates Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. Lagomorph24601 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Note: This article is about an actress, not about the British Prime Minister.) Numerically we're about split (10 keep, 14 delete, 1 merge per the autocount). This causes me to look at the arguments in more detail. The "delete" opinions mostly say that we lack sufficient sourcing, which is a strong argument. I'd expect the "keep" opinions to rebut it with references to reliable sources that do show the sort of coverage we normally require to keep an article. However, most do not. Some say that the more notable Theresa May becoming Prime Minister is not a reason for deleting this article - but that is not the argument advanced by the "delete" side, so this "keep" argument must be discounted. Similarly, most other "keep" opinions do not address the substance of the sourcing issue, with the exception of some who note that her coverage does seem to pass the inclusion guideline for porn actresses, or that she has received recent coverage for being confused with the politician - but this line of argument seems to convince relatively few people. In view of this, I consider that the "delete" opinions constitute consensus after weighing the relative strength of the arguments advanced in the light of guidelines and policy.  Sandstein  12:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Teresa May (actress)[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Teresa May (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Doubful notability PatGallacher (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This person did survive a deletion discussion back in 2008, but I suggest it would be worth looking at her again. It is far from clear to me that this person is notable. Now that a person with a very similar notable name is about to become Prime Minister of the UK, it could look a bit odd to some people to have the article on the PM with a hatnote pointing to a glamour model. However, if we decide that the glamour model is notable, then we are going to have to do that. PatGallacher (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete I agree, there are no secondary sources for this article so notability is very doubtful. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But also bear in mind that the notability (or otherwise) of this subject should not be (indeed, is not) influenced by whether we have to have a tag on another page. Muffled Pocketed 16:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I agree, never said it should. However under different circumstances people might feel inclined to let sleeping dogs lie in relation to an article which survived a deletion discussion a few years ago, even if they had their doubts about whether that decision was the right one. PatGallacher (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever the outcome here, it would be WP:UNDUE to burden Theresa May with a hatnote leading to a page on Teresa May, which is not even spelled the same.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be necessary if Teresa May redirects to Theresa May. The only other options would be a hard disambiguation page between the two at Teresa May instead, or keeping that directed to the porn actress. If this is kept, those are the three options really, you can't redirect someone with an article's name to somebody else and not mention them anywhere, as you're essentially orphaning them in our search. KaisaL (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Genuine question, forgive me if I'm just not following. Is it permissible to have Teresa May search go to the actress, but with a hatnote, and meanwhile just leave Theresa May search going to the correct Theresa May, no note? I feel like anyone who is looking for the actress and winds up at the Prime Minister page will know or easily discern what's gone amiss so I agree with E.M. Gregory that the burden on Theresa May isn't warranted; and meanwhile a hatnote on Teresa May's page will sort out anyone looking for the PM who's simply misspelled the name. I think this is preferable to the disambiguation page for Teresa May, which right now lists the actress first (because alphabetical, I assume?); my inclination is to think going straight to the actress page but with a note up top basically saying, "You sure you didn't mean the prime minister?" more firmly (and accurately) distinguishes between the two than does a list of T(h)eresas. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete I agree. I don't believe the notability criteria has been met. Calvin (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Houston, We Have a Problem This very minor porn model/actress has some very small claim to having had a WP worthy career (jury is still out on that). On the other hand, she is rapidly acquiring notoriety for her nominal similarity to Britain's highly probably next Prime Minister. (Worsened by the fact that some media outlets misspell the politician's name as "Teresa".) The sourcing for this porn actress is not much, although it exists the Daily Mirror seems to be the storngest source [3], but a naked photo in the Daily Mirror ≠ WP:NOTABILITY.α Teresa May, and - based on the enormous number of misspellings out there - redirecting WP searches on "Teresa May" to the politician. If this article is kept, I advocate redirecting "Teresa May" to the actress. I am boldly moving this article to Teresa May (actress). Now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ^α At this point, I am leaning towards delete
      • Unfortunately you could have screwed up the deletion process, since people looking for the article which it is proposed to delete could now be going to the article on the future PM. PatGallacher (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment – I changed header content for this AfD to the name of the moved page which is nominated for deletion: "Teresa May (actress)" (diff). North America1000 20:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The situation with Theresa May is a strange one, because if we do keep Teresa May redirected to her we'd have no choice but to disambiguate. We'd probably actually end up causing occasional blog and social media posts about it just by doing it. However, I don't think it's likely to be an issue because I really don't see any assertion of notability, she's been in a ton of porn and a music video but I don't see any substantial coverage in significant reliable sources. KaisaL (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that if worse comes to worst, that is, if sufficient sources surface or develop that this article has to be kept, we can avert a hatnote at Theresa May's page by covering this Teresa May to something analogous to the Campaign for "santorum" neologism - the Santorum google fiasco did not make Wikipedia look good either: [4].E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not seeing that the actress/model has an especially strong or reliably sourceable claim to encyclopedic notability; lots of people have appeared in music videos and B-movies and porn without getting encyclopedia articles for it. Accordingly, I'd prefer to delete her. If she is kept, however, then the better solution to the dab dilemma would be for the plain title Teresa May to stand alone as a dab page — a common misspelling of a Prime Minister's name is close enough to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to require dabbing a minor actress even though the official spellings are different, WP:TWODABS pages are allowed to exist when circumstances warrant it, and the potential prurience involved is enough to make this one of those times when circumstances warrant. Though deletion of the actress/model is still preferable if real RS coverage about her can't be located — and a deletion discussion that took place almost a decade ago, when Wikipedia's notability and sourcing rules were a lot more loosey-goosey than they are today and her name-twin was just a moderately obscure opposition MP rather than the PM-designate of Great Brexitland, cannot be binding on the question of what happens now. And neither am I impressed by the admission in the original AFD discussion that an editor was actively maintaining the article on May's behalf; even under the abysmal standards of 2008, we did have conflict of interest rules against that kind of thing. Bearcat (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep with title Teresa May (actress). The tabloids are making the subject increasingly notable. Readers will expect Wikipedia to provide information about her and within a few days there will be enough independently sourced data to make a solid bio. Have Teresa May point to the PM page, the primary meaning even if spelled wrong. No hatnote on the PM page and no DABs. Readers will find the actress page through Google search, which is how they find most articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP explicitly excludes tabloid sources though. I'm sure you're not wrong about reader interest, but we can only have an encyclopedia entry if we have enough reliable secondary sources to verify such an entry. If that's not available, it's not our fault that we can't provide an article and in fact, we best serve readers by maintaining that standard, and not covering things if we don't have sources with which to do so reliably. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The previous deletion discussion was very clear with not a single suggestion of delete. Having a name that is a homonym for the Prime Minister of the UK is not criteria for deletion. Agree with the suggestion of Moving to Teresa May (actress) and having this article as a DAB page. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody said that her name was a deletion criterion in and of itself. But the flurry of activity that had to surround her name-twin this week, for obvious reasons, caused people to notice that this one is actually of questionable and not-sourced notability in the first place, which isn't the same thing as deleting her because name. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment My view is that her getting a bit of current coverage for the similarity is a case of WP:BLP1E. Just because she's, umm, existed prior to now doesn't substantiate that any past events warrant an article, and having an article on somebody for their claim of having a similar name is a bit ridiculous. Also, I know this is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the media regularly run stories on people being mistaken for people and they're not notable, one example I can think of is the near annual story on @johnlewis on Twitter. So unless any reliably-sourced, significant claims to her relevance other than some brief bits on her having the same name as somebody famous come up, I still favour a delete. If she is kept, turn Teresa May into a disambiguation page. KaisaL (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just between you and me, this is very different from John Lewis. Reason is that this girl can make some real money selling her book, posters, videos of that old movie. If I was her publisher I would have oredered a new printing yesterday, and assigned a publicist. If I was her agent, I'd be... wait, her agent is probably the guy pitching articles to the Daily Mail, the Telegraph... and he's arranging a new contract and a publicity tour even as we write.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CRYSTAL pertains, though. Sure, she's in a position where she might be able to parlay this into renewed fame and fortune. But the time for an article will be once that has already happened, not when it's merely predicted as maybe becoming possible. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also just like to welcome any bloggers or newspapers that will probably be looking at this AFD debate for a quick piece on us discussing this. Hello! ;) KaisaL (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Chuckle. Also, she has a book, "My Body in Your Hands, 2012. put out by an actual (minor) publisher. [6]. In this case, I believe that we can judge a book by its cover. It appears to have gotten no traction, but that is undoubtedly about to change.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The rise to (further) prominence of a person with a similar name is not a reason to delete a pre-existing article. The move to "Teresa May (actress)" is a good idea. Regards, 23:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Delete comes no where near meeting the notability requirements for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per everyone else's reasons. Recent spike of news coverage due to Britain's new Prime Minister, but Teresa without an H falls well short of WP:GNG.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep very well known model in the UK for many years now, and is just as notable as any of the others. She was well known in England long before the current PM was known by the majority of the public. As some have pointed out, she is getting a higher profile (again) due to humorous comments being compared to the Tory leader, but the fact is when Theresa May became a well known politician, the joke then was that the glamour model must have gone into politics. Notability covers many aspects. This includes the past as well as the present day. At her peak, Teresa May the model was as well known as any glamour model in Britain! CliffordJones (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not conferred by assertions of notability — it's conferred by reliable source coverage which verifies the truth of the assertion. Funny how we're getting a lot of assertions that she's notable, yet nobody is actually lifting a finger to show that the level of reliable sourcing required to demonstrate her notability actually exists anywhere. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the matter? Don't know how to use google search and do a bit of reading/research if it means that much to you and it's a life quest for you to know all about her glittering carrer? CliffordJones (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking for myself, I've poked around quite a bit and owing to the flurry of Theresa May coverage, I've had a really hard time excavating secondary sources on Tereas May other than in relation to Th May, and we need some other coverage or the entry will likely be excluded as WP:BLP1E. It's completely standard AfD protocol to ask for links to reliable secondary sources proving there's enough material to create a reliable entry from, particularly in cases like this where the entry does not yet include such sources. So if you have those sources, please do link us to them; otherwise deletion really becomes the only option, in my view. An entry's presence on Wikipedia cannot rely on hypothetical sources, it would be completely at odds with WP:V. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're the one who wants the article to be kept, then you're the one with the responsibility to put in the work needed to prove that the necessary level of sourcing exists. It's nobody else's responsibility to do your homework for you. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Bearcat, for my own information may I ask a procedural question: do you mean (/is it consensus) that onus is on keep voters to prove their case, or, just, everyone who weighs in in any direction is expected to do their own homework? I kind of thought it was the latter--that is, any opinion is only worth the evidence that it musters--but, I have seen some AfD delete votes, and even AfD nominations, that seem more of the opinion that delete can be a default vote, and only keep needs to prove its case. I have found it frustrating in other cases that some folks seem not to have looked for sources at all before saying "delete" (not here, where evidence has been exceedingly difficult to come by) but maybe I'm wrong to. Sort me out? Thanks from an newish editor! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Just another WP:PORNSTAR. Nothing notable here. Montanabw(talk) 05:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The article doesn't demonstrate any notability. --Tataral (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Passes WP:PORNSTAR- "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." Muffled Pocketed 15:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. She does plainly meet that test. I wonder if, 1, this is a case that calls for revisiting that standard though, or 2, (which I am more loathe to do) a case where we should invoke that the "likely" notability that guideline confers does not mean always, and we should exercise discretion. On either front my reasoning is, I just don't see enough secondary source material to write a biography! Would be happy to be shown material that could fill out an article on her life, but "she was in x,y,z unreviewed films" (correct me if this is a mischaracterization) and "someone with a similar name became UK Prime Minister" is not a biography. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 23:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How does it fail? See point 3. Muffled Pocketed 10:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In my experience with PORNBIO deletion discussions, nobody can agree on the definitions of "featured", "notable", or "mainstream". Many participants just throw out "fails PORNBIO" or "passes PORNBIO" and expect the rest of us to divine exactly what they mean by that. clpo13(talk) 19:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Clpo13: Surely, at that point, someone should throw out CIR...?
    • Keep. It seems an inappropriate time to delete the article at point when she has achieved prominence. She has been featured in mainstream media, and this is likely to increase. There seems little point in deleting the article if it is likely to be recreated in the near future.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A minor flurry of "isn't it funny that this other person has the same name as our new Prime Minister?" coverage does not get a person over WP:GNG, if coverage of her accomplishing anything that would pass our notability criteria for her field of employment is lacking. Absent evidence of sufficient reliable source coverage of her work as a model and actress, dated at the time she was working as a model and actress, coverage dated this week just makes her a WP:BLP1E. This is not the first time in history that someone has gotten a day or two of media coverage for happening to have the same name as a more famous and notable person — but that's not a thing that makes the namesake permanently notable by itself. She needs career coverage dated before this week, but nobody's shown any. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bearcat: That suggests a statute of limitations; if you would be so kind? Muffled Pocketed 17:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, how does it do any such thing? Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like just a matter of phrasing, namely saying that an entry needs more than a week's coverage. If Teresa May actually had become PM this week, she would surely be notable even if we had no more than a week's coverage! So it's not the week's coverage that poses the problem for notability--but I think Bearcat's just using "this week" to stand in for "coverage only about the name similarity rather than independent notability." Correct me if I've misunderstood! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, that's the point: the issue was and is the context in which the coverage is being given. As prime minister of a sovereign country, PM Theresa has an automatic pass of our subject-specific inclusion criteria for politicians — even if she hadn't already had preexisting notability prior to becoming PM, an article would still have become mandatory the moment her selection as PM had been announced, even if it was initially based on a single same-day source. But nothing claimed in Actress Teresa's article gives her an automatic pass on any inclusion criterion — because nothing in the article gives her an automatic in, her includability is entirely dependent on the depth, quality and context of the sourcing that can be added to support it. But that's not what's being shown: what's being shown is WP:BLP1E coverage in the context of "she has the same name as our PM", not coverage of her career. That's the issue. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we predict that media coverage is "likely to increase" and the article is "likely to be recreated in the near future"? See WP:CRYSTAL? PatGallacher (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we predict this is a flurry of coverage?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I share my name with a journalist at The Age and sometimes get his fan and hate mail through Gmail but unlike him I am *not* notable. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was not created because of the similarity of name. This AfD is because of the similarity of name.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep not a BLP1E since this has happened before [7], [8], [9], [10]. Something similar was brought up in the last nomination: "Teresa actually appeared on GMTV with the MP Theresa May as a number of newspapers had run stories about the fact they had the same name." Meets point 3 of WP:PORNBIO and can be improved. Might not have been notable before her recent splurge of coverage but she probably is now. ZN3ukct (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Getting confused with a more notable person of the same name on more than one separate occasion does not constitute separate events for the purposes of escaping BLP1E; it's a single thing that lay dormant for a while and then revived again, not two discrete things. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes they are separate events. It happened more than once, before the other person was PM and after. BLP1E is not BLP notable for one thing. Her porn work was also talked about and there is a 16 year gap between the current sources, not just a few days or weeks. ZN3ukct (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't imagine this will be the deciding factor in the AFD, but: reporting that just reiterates something that was already reported does not constitute a separate event. For instance, merely reporting the anniversary of the Civil War is not a separate event from the Civil War. However, if there were substantial coverage not about the Civil War's events, but say, about Civil War reenactments marking the anniversary, that might well constitute a separately notable event. Teresa May has no such new, separately covered developments. Theresa May does have, but the coverage of Teresa may only restates the same information about her, which is currently too limited to fill even a single paragraph. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Twitter did not exist 16 years ago [11]. I think that this can be considered a "modern reenactment". The article can still be improved, it doesn't cover the name mix-up. Some of these appearances [12] might be worth looking into, like "A Documentary on Teresa May". ZN3ukct (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, now we're getting somewhere! A few items in response to ZN3ukct:
    1. If you see improvements that can be made, by all means, don't hold back. A more substantial entry would make this AfD so, so much clearer. (There is of course the risk that your work will end up deleted, but since you feel strongly that this could be a valid entry, I think showing what that would look like would go a lot farther in proving your case than abstraction.)
    2. Great lead on sources. We still need to locate them on something not published by Teresa May (i.e. "independent", not her own website); a source that's "reliable" according to Wikipedia standards (secondary not primary, not tabloid, etc.); and, we need to show that they're "significant coverage" again by Wiki standards (more than trivial mentions), in order for the entry to be legit. I will do some searches on the titles listed there; I haven't had luck so far (for instance the only google search hits I get on "documentary about Teresa May" are from affiliated websites), so I urge you to look as well if you hope to prove that coverage meeting those standards does exist. Here's a slightly clearer version of the same list to work from: http://www.teresamaymanagement.co.uk/teresa_may_management_1.html
    3. All the same. I continue to disagree about BLP1E. People noticing the name coincidence on Twitter simply isn't meaningfully different from people noticing the name coincidence via print newspapers. It certainly does not remotely compare to the difference between a civil war and staging a reenactment of a civil war!! (To pick literally just one of the relevant, profound differences: David W. Blight filled a 500-page book on civil war reenactments. We don't even have enough to fill a paragraph on the Twitter thing.) This is a bit similar to the suggestion I already made below, but if we had a page (maybe we do!) called something like Trending Twitter topics of 2016, then for sure it would merit a mention. But inclusion under a broader header is very, very different from the consensus standard for a standalone biography, let alone of a living person. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Event" is not synonymous with "incident". A process can also be an "event" — an election campaign, for instance, is a single event, and does not get an unelected candidate past WP:BLP1E just because they held five or six separate campaign "events" within the umbrella of the overall event. If a non-notable BLP1E incident occurs, dies down and then reemerges again months or years later, that doesn't make the original incident and the reemergence two distinct events if the substance of the two occurrences is the same non-encyclopedic distinction. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: More reliable sources are starting to come through, albeit mostly reporting the case of mistaken identity. There are stories about her at RT UK, The Huffington Post and The Daily Telegraph, for example, and even CBC in Canada have picked it up. I'm not convinced this glamour model was notable before her namesake became Prime Minister, but no doubt she will receive more media interest from now on. This is Paul (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    She is and was notable enough for her own article, even before the woman with the same name became PM. Notability is not just made up of current facts. If it was Leif Garrett wouldn't warrant an article based on his status now. The fact remains this glamour model was just as big and well known as any other at the height of her career CliffordJones (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by my keep vote. Had a IMDB profile too and they have not (yet) felt the need to add the confusion with the new PM as part of her bio. [13] Also her bio at what seems to somewhat a version of this site regarding adult entertainers states she has been a mainstream model [14], which she was for quite a considerable amount of time, so she had a level of fame well before the current mix up with the woman who now resides at number 10 Downing Street CliffordJones (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the WP:SENSATION articles began years ago, back when May was a back bencher. And yet this actresses' career never amounted to anything, even with that years-long flurry of tabloid photos of the 2 juxtapositioned. Half the people I know are on IMDB. Some of us because of movies filming in institutions where we work where they give walk on parts to the staff; some were talking heads in documentaries related to a field. Some acted a bit before moving to their present career. Being on IMDB as a very minor actor does not rate an article; to pass AP:ACTOR there have to be secomdary sources demonstrating notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete per the policy based votes and discount vague handwaving and assertions. Spartaz Humbug! 18:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I regretfully vote to delete. I'll be quite candid: I'm happy this conversation has been largely respectful but given the tone I've seen taken in other AfDs when WP:PORNBIO comes up (often, is invoked along lines of WP:OTHERSTUFF), I do worry about how bias weighs on decisions to delete entries of people, particularly women, who've been involved in sex work. I'd be happy if I thought we could write a properly sourced article; that would make this easy for me to vote keep. But. I just do not see the sources here to write anything resembling a biography of this particular woman's life. That this entry has been around more than ten years, now gone through two AfDs (the present one being pretty darn exhaustive) and still no one has produced sources that go beyond naming some films (no sources that, say, review her performance in the films) and the amusement that she and the PM have similar names. Wikipedia does not have a deadline but nor does it run on hypothetical sources. If, say, reviews of her book come out, or someone writes a profile on her actual life, then terrific. But what we have right now is not the basis for an entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, the following is an idea that I assume will please no one, but purely as an intellectual matter, this seems like the kind of thing that, were we handling a different kind of material, we'd just merge into a one-line notation on Theresa May's page, remarking that this minor media blitz happened. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect and merge to a single sentence somewhere on Theresa May's page as per User:Innisfree987. (I am quite frankly uncertain if I formally iVoted somewhere above.) Redirecting Teresa May (actress) in this way is a good answer to the problem of a minor porn actress notble only for recurring bouts of WP:SENSATION.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    E.M.Gregory Just on the ivote question, if I'm reading correctly, I thought the speedy keep was yours? No pressure, I don't want to suggest you strike it just because your more recent comment is closer to my thinking! But for clarity/so as to vote only once, it might be good to strike whichever one no longer represents your view. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Despite years of declarations that substantive coverage exists, the only sources remain IMDB credit lists. While a recent spate of coverage has occurred, even the small non-tabloid share of that coverage does little if anything more than report the subject's name and profession, with negligible actual biographical content. Clearly no sufficient basis established for a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, as per previous submissions and comments. Ref (chew)(do) 15:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This is about Teresa May. To people with an IQ below room temperature and therefore to certain sectors of the press, the coincidence of names with Theresa May is the funniest thing that has ever happened, so there's been a sudden spate of coverage. It's not fair on either woman to risk any confusion between them and we need to ensure there's no ambiguity and as little scope for vandalism as possible. But there's real coverage about Teresa May the former adult starlet. It may be because of the coincidence of names but the GNG doesn't ask for the reason for the coverage. It's a simple objective test and Teresa May passes it. I've looked at some of the votes here and they make me wonder what will happen when Professor Dr Chew Shit Fun passes WP:PROF...—S Marshall T/C 21:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, actually GNG does pay attention to the reason and context for the coverage: there's this thing called WP:BLP1E that rules out brief blips of RS coverage of otherwise non-notable people, in inconsequential and non-encyclopedic contexts, as not getting that person over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP1E is a different thing from the GNG, Bearcat, and Teresa May without the h is not a WP:LPI. I expect you mean BIO1E (which, unlike BLP1E, is actually a subsection of one of our many notability pages), and ok, if we did strictly adhere to the guideline, you could argue that the article should be about the event rather than the person (presumably Teresa May's name). I put it to you that this would be following a rule off a cliff.—S Marshall T/C 18:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as Teresa May (actress), she is just about notable, the fact that she has a similar name to someone else shouldn't come into consideration (apart from boosting her coverage and notability even more). Reading between the lines of some comments above it seems some editors do not want to 'besmirch' Theresa May with this article. That's not the way an encyclopaedia works. Mountaincirque 15:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I share your concern for bias here, but I think it's inaccurate to say the name coincidence "boost[s] her coverage and notability even more," as if there were any other coverage. Can you point me to sources independent of this WP:BLP1E? Seriously, I'd be delighted to change my vote if someone can link to coverage of her sufficient to fill out an entry. I hereby commit to writing it up myself if someone can locate the sources that I've been unable to find. But a ton of energy has been expended here and none of it has yielded such sources. If they don't exist, the solution is to lobby media, scholars, etc. for better coverage of topics you find worthwhile, not to create either unsubstantiated or virtually empty entries. As you say: that's not how an encyclopedia works. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep A highly noteable actress and glamour model. As editor CliffordJones rightly notes, for a while in the 90s she was more famous in GB than the good Prime Minister. Since most of the above votes were cast, editor WurmWoode has added new sources, further cementing the case for noteability. As she's highly noteable even without the recent coverage, we'd need to have an article on this woman even if she had a totally unique name. But just to note I see no validity to the BLP1E argument. Having the same name as a politican is not an "event". FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, the "new sources" are all citations on the name kerfuffle. One was original research (link to subject's own tweet), so I deleted that, leaving three:
    Still no independent material on anything else in Teresa May's career. And even within the name coverage, none of these pieces spends even two full sentences describing her career. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that User:Innisfree987 has a point. Editors keep describing her as notable, but we don't keep actors merely because they have a series of IMDB listings for minor roles in minor films. They need to have coverage in secondary sources. Editors arguing that she is notable need to bring sources (other than articles about the WP:SENSATION about the Prime Minister's name.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Depopulation of cockroaches in post-Soviet states[edit]

    Depopulation of cockroaches in post-Soviet states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This having been brought to my attention, all I can see here is a cluster of articles around a particular date plus maybe some other one that doesn't really relate to it. This seems to be a mixture of "quirky news story" and WP:OR, but there's not a lot of reason to believe it amounted to something without better verification. If it's about wild populations of the oriental cockroach, material ought to go in that latter article, but "post-Soviet" is misleading: the Crimea is where it is indigenous. Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Some further comments: First, I looked at the Russian article, and it isn't substantially different from ours, relying on the same sources. Second, the visitation of these pages isn't really relevant to the accuracy of the article. Finally, one would expect something like this to be reported in something like scientific sources. So far, I'm not seeing that. Mangoe (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep:
    1. Can be expanded from Russian wiki.
    2. Significant daily visits to both the English and Russian article.
    3. Quick search of 'исчезли тараканы' (cockroaches disappeared) in Russian shows that it is still being discussed, e.g. in this article in a top Russian online magazine [15]
    On a side note, however, it may be worth rewriting the article to point out that while a good number of scientists are serious about this, the subject has sometimes been dismissed as an urban legend. Major urban legends, however, are still notable enough for Wikipedia. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, I'd also like to see it expanded from the Russian article. If it's a well known phenomenon in that region, then I see no reason for it's deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpdwkouaa (talk • contribs)
    • Keep - Per Shawn in Montreal Anthony Ivanoff. The disappearance of cockroaches in the former USSR seems to be of some significance, which means that it's a good idea to have an article on the subject. Kurtis (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Minor note: That was not me, above, but rather an unsigned !vote from a different editor. I've tagged it as such, now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also fixed my rationale. Sorry about that. Kurtis (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Meets GNG (even if some of the links have gone 404). I've never heard anything about this phenomenon, which strikes me as in some way similar to the hive collapse issue we are having with honeybees in North America. Learn Russian while you work: cockroach = tarakan. Carrite (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Martha Asahi[edit]

    Martha Asahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    She was a guest at YaoiCon 2016 and YaoiCon 2015, but is that enough to keep her profile around? Only one work listed at MADB and there's no indication it's a best-seller or highly critiqued among the Yaoi or manga community (WP:NAUTHOR) No ANN entry. No idea how notable her cosplaying/modeling profession is and whether she won any awards or magazine covers from that. Also missing secondary reliable sources per WP:BASIC. Possibly WP:TOOSOON AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC) updated 16:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unable to find any reliable sources via an internet search. As mentioned above, her only appearances in sources seem to be in small, non-reliable niche websites. Johanna(talk to me!) 22:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I tagged this for notability back in May (someone then removed the tag, but another editor re-tagged it). I cannot find any RS when searching in Japanese. The reason I noticed it is because I first saw the article for VENaS Japan, which includes Asahi. Depending on the results of this AfD, that article should be inspected as well. Michitaro (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Lacks notability in reliable third party sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Goodhew (Kent cricketer)[edit]

    Goodhew (Kent cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Is there really enough known about this guy to justify having his own article? All we know about him is that he played a few games of cricket. We don't even know his first name. I know we usually keep athletes, but why keep THIS one? Couldn't we at least find a single page to list all the last-name-unknown stubs by team and dates of activity? pbp 13:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliability and sourcing at the level of this article is tricky as heck for historic players with little impact such as this one (particularly notable players such as Pilch, Felix etc.. are obviously much easier). A redirect to either Kent county cricket teams or List of English cricketers might be appropriate - in theory an article along the same lines as List of Kent County Cricket Club players could be written for pre-county club players, but that would require a better directory than I have available. I'm sympathetic to a redirect but I'd imagine others will defend this article as being notable because of his first-class matches. Incidentally, CricketArchive has him as only playing three first-class matches which is different to the article - I don't have access to scores and biographies of course. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, meets WP:NCRIC having played in matches that have been designated as first-class. There are several of these mononymous articles for early cricket history and I think for baseball too. What's important to realise is that many of these articles do have scope for improvement, it may just take some time before the research is done at a RS-level so that we can reflect it here. As an example that was on my watchlist today, Christopher Bethell-Codrington began life as Codrington (MCC cricketer) and took several years before it was expanded. I think it likely that, in time, Goodhew could be similarly expanded. Jenks24 (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The player being cited in Scores and Biographies and it being agreed by CricketArchive he played in at least three matches rated first-class, is meaning he was a notable player. The article is in much need of expansion and improvement, it is true, but the player is most certainly meeting WP:NCRIC and WP:CRIN. Those two sources being cited, there can be no denying reliability of sourcing. I am reading much about early cricket history and it being clear to me standards were very high, no doubt in my mind that Kent in 18th century is deserving of first-class status (but until just now I have not read of this player). I am assuming Scores and Biographies is calling a fourth match first-class, one that CricketArchive calls "miscellaneous", unless author made mistake with "four" instead of "three". Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 14:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Article says he played four first-class matches from 1789 and I am seeing in CricketArchive one "miscellaneous" match in 1789, this must be fourth match (or first of four) between Middlesex and London. There is footnote saying, "The Middlesex team may in reality have been representative of the Uxbridge club but most of the players did make a number of appearances in matches against quality opponents". My guess then is guessing a first-class rating in Scores and Biographies. I have friend who is owning that book so I can be checking it. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 15:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have expanded the article. I am struggling with links as being unsure of what some of these old teams representing with no county clubs in English cricket then. Oldfield? A first-class team, but who and where were they? I am seeing also the games being played at Lord's but this cannot have been the Lord's where it is now, I am recalling that Thomas Lord had an earlier ground and I am not sure about linking that too. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 15:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Eureka! Oldfield Cricket Club is redirecting to Berkshire county cricket teams and Berkshire in 18th century a first-class county. That is something I have not been reading before. "Oldfield" it is properly "Old Field" and it is name of Berkshire ground. So confusing, but still first-class. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 16:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, hmmm. WP:NCRIC says he's presumed to be notable if he "has appeared... in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest... domestic level". Well I guess the source is reliable and "substantial" (whatever that means), and I guess the matches he appeared in are at the highest level for England at the time (I'm assuming that this is true). Still, even then, he's only presumed notable, that doesn't mean he definitely is notable. And if we don't even know your name, how the heck notable are you? "Presumptions" aside, you're not very notable if nobody has even bothered to keep track of your name, hm? How many of our articles on notable people begin "So-and-so was a notable [admiral, scientist, artist, whatever] and he was so notable that nobody even bothered to write down his first name"? Not many.
    On the other hand, the purpose of WP:NCRIC is to let the sports completeists have their way and obviate the need for the very many long discussions we would have to have of we don't have a clear bright-line rule. In baseball we have a clear rule, one at-bat in one major league game and you're in, no need for case-by-case discussions. In American politics we have a clear bright-line rule, membership in any state legislature and you're in, no need for case-by-case discussions. This serves the Wikipedia.
    All things considered, IMO there's no harm in having an exhaustively complete set of articles for people in certain athletic category -- we're not constrained by the cost of printing; and the Wikipedia is best served if we can avoid case-by-case discussions of these people; so I vote keep. Herostratus (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Herostratus. Problem in early English cricket being a social one. Professional players were recorded by surname only in match scorecards. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 15:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In case it's of interest, we have approximately 40 MLB players with biographies where their given names are unknown. Jenks24 (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But contra my earlier point, there are notable people who we don't know their full names, if you go deep enough into history.
    Still, if anyone wants an excuse to vote against this guy... the fact is that he's not notable. Absent special pleading from sports enthusiasts, there's no way on earth an unbaised person would come across this person and say "Well, here's someone who has made some small but not negligible impact on history so as to be worthy of note sufficient to excite the interest of the readers of general-purpose encyclopedia, so let's have an article on him along with our articles on generals and authors and explorers and famous athletes and so forth, and there's sufficient material here to make a short but useful article."
    Any reasonable person must vouchsafe that this would not happen absent the special pleading. He's an utter nobody. For my part I accept the special pleading for the sake of peace and quiet and because we're not paper. It is special pleading though. Herostratus (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per WP:NCRIC or discuss new rules which would affect every professional competitive team sport on Wikipedia. These discussions don't seem to come up when faced with an NHL, NFL, MLS, MLB, NBA player. Unless they do, of course. To "draw a line" regarding some kind of article merging several cricketers into one is a violation of NPOV. Bobo. 20:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bobo. Hi, Bobo. NPOV is excellent point. To draw such a line is most certainly requiring a subjective view. I am reading WP:CRIN again and considering beauty of it being, it ensures an objective view. Thank you, Bobo. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 08:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Nazcheema. I have created several hundred articles for cricketers with just a single first-class appearance. Because we have *one* rule, just like every other project has *one* rule. And in the case of professional sport, that rule is exactly the same in all places. Bobo. 10:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Angela Nicoletti[edit]

    Angela Nicoletti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Notability not established. Existence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources appears nonexistent. —swpbT 12:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 12:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 12:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as I couldn't find any independent sources. Much of the material looks to be a copyvio from a personal site. Ca2james (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If it's a copyvio, then you need to flag it there and put up the copyright investigation tag here. That's the better approach. Montanabw(talk) 23:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: IMDb is not a reliable source; notability is not inherited from Guns N' Roses or their songs; I cannot find any other sources. Even if the article is not a copyvio (I haven't checked Ca2james' claim), I don't think the topic is notable. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sunil Giri[edit]

    Sunil Giri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fail WP:NMUSIC: Author removed the WP:BLPPROD after citing non-rs (Youtube, Google Map and some other sources) when the prod was about to expire tomorrow. Its been 6 days when i proposed article for deletion and since then author fail to cite any reliable source to support notability. Thank You – GSS (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete- I couldn't find much in English reliable sources to demonstrate notability. I believe at the moment the subject fails at WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Hitro talk 10:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete- The onlinekhabar articles seem in-dept although it's difficult to judge from the translated version. Unclear if onlinekhabar is a RS. No author, from what I can tell, is identified. The site terms of service make no claims about completeness, accuracy and reliability of the content. Beyond that I've found no in-depth coverage. Claims of awards in the article are unsourced. Gab4gab (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel Ryder[edit]

    Daniel Ryder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete. Fails WP:NHOCKEY, though his legal problems sets him apart infamously. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am leaning keep as he has been covered in his hockey a little bit. But there is a tonne of coverage surrounding his legal and health troubles. -DJSasso (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - There is quite a bit of coverage about him - a lot about his legal issues, some about his health issues, and even some specifically about hockey, such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlendog (talk • contribs)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 11:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Andriy Khlyvnyuk[edit]

    Andriy Khlyvnyuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Clearly lacks reliable references. Aksnahar (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Page was created without {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. One of a series of malformed nominations by an account with few edits. Fixed now--I offer no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall talk 17:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Vocalist of a band with an article but nothing to indicate he is relevant in his own right. KaisaL (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as I still have found nothing for convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have closed this as consensus to delete, but has anyone looked at the current sourcing? At least some of it looks like it should be considered, as it comes from major news sites. And if the artist is not individually notable, what about the band that he leads? Isn't this content worth merging/redirecting somewhere? (Russian/Ukrainian-language sources should not be discounted just because most enwp editors can't read them.) I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 08:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 11:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Garry's Mod#User-created_content. Nothing sourced to merge. czar 09:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    DarkRP[edit]

    DarkRP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Essentially everything here is from their own website. It would be a valid G11, except that the G11 template was removed by spa. DGG ( talk ) 15:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect or merge to Garry's Mod. I found this article at Rock Paper Shotgun, but this seems to be the most in-depth source available from a WP:VG/RS Google custom search. The others are mere trivial mentions, which don't really help toward notability. Since there's at least once source that has written about it, I think a merge may be warranted. I don't know if this would be undue, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sadly, I am not used to Wikipedian Admin Logic, please explain why are you guys taking down the only page that has actually skyrocketed for me down. Gotta <3 Deutscher Schäferhunds (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Aaryan33056: Wikipedia has inclusion criteria. You can read a brief guide at WP:42 and a longer guide at WP:YFA. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 11:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect to Garry's Mod. I feel that discussing these communities on that article would be worthwhile, but I don't see the topic itself meeting article status that well, esp considering the sources/ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 09:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. After three relists, a consensus has not been established. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 02:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeroo[edit]

    Jeroo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Nothing news worthy I could find. Does not meet WP:N JudeccaXIII (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    keep: it's an academic tool to teach students how to do object oriented programming, so it's not reviewed in places like CNET or PCMag, but it's mentioned in university websites and academic papers. For example:
    Also a few hits on Google Books: https://www.google.com/search?q=jeroo+programming&pws=0&gl=us&biw=1536&bih=764&tbm=bks&sa=X
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I see the references brought forward by @WikiLaurent: (who need to sign their !vote still), but think it is not enough to meet our notability guideline. I also don't think that these students come to Wikipedia to learn about this teaching environment and it's audience is therefor too small to generate reliable secondary sourcing, hence to be included in Wikipedia. DeVerm (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources I've listed above are reliable. Academic papers are reliable and so are third-party published books. Plenty of programming languages have tiny, sometime almost non-existent audience, and might still have an article on Wikipedia. As long as the sources are reliable I see no problem with that. Laurent (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 11:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep, I can see it being notable as an academic tool, especially as having a part in a decent number of academic publications/ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I come from a software development background and love object oriented programming. That said, for an article on Wikipedia we have guidelines that must be met; in this case, WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:RS are the guidelines that we must hold this article against... and only when it stands up to that we get ground to keep it. DeVerm (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Shihab S. Asfour[edit]

    Shihab S. Asfour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    University professor. A search found only social media profiles and non-independent mentions. Not nearly enough coverage to meet the requirements at WP:GNG. Most of the article is WP:LISTCRUFT. Omni Flames (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This is essentially just a cv, and neither his Google scholar citation counts nor his administrative position are enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep GS h-index of 19 in reasonable well-cited field maybe just over the line. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 11:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Yash! 11:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Civil Aviation Department, Haryana[edit]

    Civil Aviation Department, Haryana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Delete. Only reference provided opens up to Harayana government website with a big banner displaying "Irrigation and water resources department Haryana" and neither the word "civil" nor "aviation" could be found in search. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Withdrawn by nominator. User:Lezela provided credible sources which establishes the notability. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete if it can't be verified it even exists. LibStar (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    please remove the delete tag, as references have been significantly improved and wrong reference website has been replaced with the correct this website of this department. Thanks. Lezela (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Re-opened the AfD discussion as per discussion on my TalkPage here. I tried to explain to Omni Flames that under owing to AfD discussion above (read comment from Lezela, the discussion produced new information about the topic which then translated the nomination being invalid / a mistake); I withdrew the nomination. But he does not seem to be convinced and hence opening the discussion again. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Plenty of independent, reliable sources here, such as The Times of India, Yahoo News and The Tribune. Easily enough to meet the requirements at WP:GNG. Omni Flames (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 01:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Live at Angkor Wat[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Live at Angkor Wat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. First, it should be noted that the article was nominated for deletion (for unclear reasons) three years ago and the result was Keep. The reader is referred to the previous AfD page, for the strong and clear-cut evidence provided therein.
    It is not clear how another AfD arose for the exact same page, nor is there any justification for that.
    Additionally, not a single reason exists to delete the article. The notability box at the top of the article was added by one user, without a bit of discussion (there's none on the article's talk page), without any reasoning and contrary to WP rules.
    The article is about a release by Placebo, a highly notable band, with an entire, well-developed "article space" devoted to them (discography, albums, singles, other releases, members, former members, etc.). All of those articles fulfill the WP guidelines, including references to external, independent sources writing on the subject.
    To be certain, all WP guidelines are unequivocally met. The article satisfies all of them and more:
    1. Its subject is notable.
    2. It is part of a series of articles, encompassing a chronological progression, which all need to exist, side by side, for the reader to be able to receive complete information on the subject.
    3. It is easy for the reader to understand exactly what the article is about and how to reach it. If the reader is not interested in the subject, there is no reason they will encounter the article. However, if the reader is interested in the subject, they need the article and will be interested in the information it provides.
    4. The article has existed on Wikipedia for over four years now, helping readers get the information they require and not generating any notability issues, except for one "notability box" added mistakenly by only one user, without any discussion and contrary to WP rules.
    5. Last but not least, the article is referenced with external sources, unrelated and independent from the band. Those sources have written about the article's subject. Additional sources, if necessary, can easily and quickly be added.
    In summary, the article fully satisfies the notability guidelines. It seems that even mentioning a possible deletion of the article was simply a misunderstanding, caused by not attending to the fact that the article is notable and does reference to external, independent sources. The article provides readers, both new and well-acquainted with the subject, the knowledge they need, in an organized, informative manner. It should certainly be kept. A.R. (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Release by a highly notable band. I see no benefit from deletion. --Michig (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep unlike too many musicians with articles, Placebo's notability is abundantly clear. A release like this by such a notable band is notable. MLA (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleted by Jimfbleak as advertising under G11. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM 18:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    DEVELOP3D[edit]

    DEVELOP3D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I found some coverage about the events the magazine holds, which might mean the events they hold are notable, but I could not find enough significant coverage about the magazine itself. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Mathcad rounding syntax[edit]

    Mathcad rounding syntax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Jorge Stolfi (talk · contribs) created this stub "largely to hold a list of rounding functions removed from the rounding article. Not sure this article deserves to exist, but this stuff did no belong there." The current scope is limited to the point that it's non-notable. And merging into the broader Mathcad article is undersirable because syntax is secondary to the end-users, as Mathcad adopts a WYSIWYG approach. fgnievinski (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is some discussion and support for merging AirAttack 2 & AirAttack (video game) into AirAttack and make it a single article about both games, but this can be done editorially by a WP:BOLD editor or can be discussed further on the talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    AirAttack 2[edit]

    AirAttack 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Only meaningful hit in a video game reliable sources custom Google search was a TouchArcade review (there was much more for Army Men: Air Attack 2). There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 03:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 03:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I agree I also could not find any reputable sources other than the app store listing. I don't think that in and of itself warrants an article. Ke5crz (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reviews are not the only material which can show notability; there are a solid 4 sources (noting all are from the same website) which include development, pre-release information, and etc. Keep. --Izno (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      That said, a combined article with the first game may be desirable, since there are further hits for that game as well. --Izno (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant coverage generally means not coming from the same source czar 09:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also where are these four links? czar 17:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Both TouchArcade and Pocket Gamer wrote reviews for the game. And both this and this are quite in-depth talking about the game's gameplay. This should pass the notability guideline, though the article is in terrible shape. AdrianGamer (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The sources provided above suggest that this meets GNG; or am I missing something? Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - The PocketGamer and TouchArcade group of sources are enough to scrape by the bottom of the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above and additional sources I found: 1 (2 and 3 same?) 4 Adam9007 (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when are two reviews from mobile-only sites enough for the general notability guideline? We've always used three as a hard floor, and even then, that's a minimum—topics are supposed to assert some actual "notability"... What kind of article are we going to write with Adrian's four links? Adam's two links, by the way, are press releases. czar 13:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      To which policy or guideline do you refer when you use the phrase "hard floor"? You might want to review your own link to the GNG; "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected" (emphasis mine) and subsequently a really large and long note about possible inclusion in the context of another article. As I suggested above, perhaps there should be a series article without individual games articles, since I found results for AirAttack as well as AirAttack 2 on the VG/RS engine. --Izno (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What does them being mobile-only matter? Are they secondary sources? Yes. Are they reliable? Most probably. By that logic, PlayStation or Xbox magazines don't count towards notability, as they only cover their respective platforms. Adam9007 (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're adding layers of requirements that don't exist. Technically, the only requirement is multiple third party reliable sources that cover significant coverage. Multiple equals 2. It's fine to have personal standards (I usually don't write or defend articles without 4 or 5 sources), but technically 2 mobile websites writing dedicated reviews cut it. There's other issues with your reasoning as well. (PoketGamer isn't "mobile-only", as it covers handheld gaming as well, Touch Arcade writing up a detailed preview, and then a detailed review, counts as 2 sources towards meeting the GNG, not one just because they came from the same website, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sergecross73: I think he was referring to the sources I found, not PocketGamer or Touch Arcade. Adam9007 (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh okay, when he mentioned "2 reviews", I wasn't sure if he was talking about the 2 you mentioned, or the 2 I mentioned, since your rationale also had a "per above" comment, and I had commented directly above you. Regardless, it doesn't change much about my comment, other than maybe I didn't need to clarify that PocketGamer wasn't a mobile-gaming-only website. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - For the record, here's a list of sources, all in one place, that cover the subject in significant detail (most dedicating entire articles to it), and are definitely not press releases:
    1. http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPad/AirAttack+2/review.asp?c=68534
    2. http://toucharcade.com/2015/12/01/airattack-2-trailer/
    3. http://toucharcade.com/2015/12/18/airattack-2-review/
    4. http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPad/AirAttack+2/news.asp?c=70259
    5. http://toucharcade.com/2015/12/11/toucharcade-game-of-the-week-airattack-2/
    6. http://toucharcade.com/2015/12/07/airattack-2-released/
    And those are just the ones that have a clear consensus for being reliable from WP:VG/S. There's coverage in some other sources I'm less familiar with as well. (For example - http://www.mymac.com/2016/01/air-attack-2-for-ios-review/ - I'm not familiar with them, but they've been around for 20 years and wrote a detailed review.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two reviews. The Pocket Gamer news article adds no new information—it's about a sale. The TouchArcade news articles are longer but... they're all from the same source. There's nothing inherently wrong with the sites, but when establishing notability for the topic (and significant coverage in particular), we've always aimed for more than two reviews and wider coverage than multiple posts from the same niche/site. Izno, the number three is, in itself, arbitrary because the policy is left flexible, but that doesn't mean that there hasn't been a de facto standard. The underlying question is whether you can write a balanced article using these six sources, and if four are from the same source, we hardly have enough variance to give a rounded perspective on the topic. (This is also the kind of inside baseball that gives WikiProjects a bad rap—if any sort of AfD regular outside the games domain saw these six sources, they would call this a merge candidate at best, but lately AfD has been the luck of the draw...) There's also the difference between independent notability and noteworthiness. When there is substantial coverage on a topic but it's weak in any number of areas, it's often a better candidate for merger into some parent article than existing on its own in a perpetually unfinished article. For example, you might only have a paragraph or two of gameplay and reception in the current sources, but it would be a good fit if combined with the AirAttack reviews to separate sections on a combined page—a more suitable scope for the two. czar 19:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little unsure, but you seem to be indicating a tentative support for an article on AirAttack, covering this article's material as well as the first game's material, as I suggested. Is that the case? --Izno (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Its great to aspire to do better, but we're just aspiring to meet the WP:GNG in the barest form here, and we have. A handful of reviews and previews are enough to write up at least a good stub article. I've done it before with less (which I'll do here if its necessary to save the article, though right now, that doesn't seem to be the case.) And say what you will about "reputations", but WP:VG does pretty good about having active, relevant discussions at least. The other field I frequently, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs, has far less active discussion. I mean, especially the bottom half of their current list. At least we're discussing and coming to active consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Izno, yes, there is certainly enough coverage between what I linked for AirAttack and what has been linked for AirAttack 2. My only question has been of threshold. For some context, look at either my talk page messages from @DGG asserting that a handful of full book reviews aren't enough to justify a standalone article, or @KaisaL's treatment of niche sources as the sole source of notability when trying to bring some sanity to our eSports articles. I'm not talking down on WPVG—it's just worth acknowledging that our discussions can be bubbles when they don't have outside participation and that two reviews + news from the same source is very weak justification/coverage for keeping a standalone article, if it's even justification at all. Notability, in the end, is supposed to be a marker of a topic's standout significance. czar 03:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on the book reviews. One major book review can be enough for notability, if published in a source which is sufficiently discriminating. Any number of mere notices in indiscriminate sources are not.
    But the other consideration for separate articles is the relationship of the work. There's generally no point in writing a separate article for a sequel or works in a series, unless each work is very important, because anyone who would be interested in one is likely to be interested in the other. This has nothing to do with notability, but to appropriate coverage and proper organization. To quote from WP:N, the section on Do related topics provide needed context? DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clear consensus afte relisting DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Iza Radinsky[edit]

    Iza Radinsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable artist. Does not pass GNG. Her exhibitions are wholly unreferenced . Maybeparaphrased (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Agree with nom: non-notable artist.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    OYO Rooms[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    OYO Rooms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Since there was not both a clear and populated consensus at the first AfD, it's time to revisit since the article has only been replastered as advertising again and again, the article still, like before the AfD, still looks like an advertisement (see this) which only focuses with advert information such as funding, partnerships, expansions and awards. My own searches and examinations, which I went through pages and pages to find each one (specifically at News and the customized Indian News search engines) but only still found PR-hinting news, news for its funding, partnerships and especially "starting company status" (which the current sources also insinuate). I'm particularly notifying DGG who not only has a history of involvement with these subject AfDs and the specific topic, but also has a history of examining advertisement articles (his comments were also specifically what this article is currently troubled with, the fact this is still questionably notable, regardless of any apparent coverage). SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possibly keep as revised. Just as a demonstration, I removed as much promotional material as possible. There's a plausible claim to notability as leader in its market segment. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - AfD is not for cleanup. Not the first time. Not the second time. Nevertheless WP:VOLUNTEER DGG has cleaned up the article since this nomination. I hope this doesn't encourage more cleanup nominations. ~Kvng (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 01:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    El Castillo del Terror (2004)[edit]

    El Castillo del Terror (2004) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Lack of notability. A one-evening sporting event in a hall with max. 2,400 spectators, for which we have one source of routine sports coverage, and one short mention in the entry of one participant in a lucha encyclopedia? We don't even know the names of most participants, and 80% or more of the article is not about this event in any case, but general information. The "event" section really says all one has to know about the notability of this specific event. Fram (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - There is an assumption that the coverage is "routine" in an "encylopedia". Reasons below.  MPJ-DK  12:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first of two sources listed for the show itself is a weekly magazine which does not just list "a defeated b", they actually covered the show (Significant), from a long-running wrestling magazine with an editor and an editorial process that is not associated with the wrestling promotion (Reliable source, Secondary coverage, Independent of subject).
    • As for the encylopedia, unlike Wikipedia an encyclopedia can indeed be a reliable source, especially since it has an editorial process, is secondary coverage and is independent of the subject. The second source is an addition to the first one.
    • Being a "one-evening" event nor the amount of people watching it are part of the WP:GNG, did you know that the Super Bowl is also a "one-evening" event?? GNG is about sources, "one-evening" and number of people in the building are irrelevant to notability. If we put that aspect on it this is part of a long-running series of annual shows held by IWRG, one of the signature events of IWRG not just some random show.
    • As for content, I tried to give the perspective of the actual event, not just a narrow "this happened from 10 to 12 PM" and as the GNG states (in a section header no less) "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" so that's not a reason to AFD it.
    • Let's address the last one "not all the participants are known", the pictures shows various wrestlers in the cage, but does not list them by name and it would be Original Research by me to actually name them.
    • Please reread my deletion nomination. The routine part and the encyclopedia part are two separate items, not one, so it looks as if you are making strawaman arguments. And while it is good that you provide some background, the fact remains that without the background we are left with a two-sentence, one-source article (the "event" section) on an event with limited number of viewers and very limited coverage shortly after the game, not WP:SUSTAINED as required by WP:N. Fram (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What the heck is a "strawman" argument? I addressed that the coverage was not just routine "sports score" I fail to see that "it's an encylopedia" is any sort of argument for the AFD. Considering the encylopedia was published years late and covered the mask loss (it's specifcally a called "The Mask Encylopedia") that took place in the main event that part is not "shortly after the show".  MPJ-DK  13:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You started your defense with "There is an assumption that the coverage is "routine" in an "encylopedia"." while no such assumption was made. There was on the one hand one piece of routine coverage, and on the other hand a passing mention in an encyclopedia lemma about a wrestler. Straw man indicates the fallacy involved, and why I can hardly address the defense you built, as it starts out from a false premisse. You are still conflating the news coverage and the encyclopedia (which, despite the name "encyclopedia", looks more like a 64-page glossy catalogue, not really an encyclopedia in the standard sense of the word). Fram (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize for the quality of the source being compromised by it being in color, glossy and has pictures, I know that is important to a reliable source. I've put my position, you've pointed out the glossiness, I think I'll just let others comment on this as well.  MPJ-DK  14:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, but an "encyclopedia" which looks like this on an average page is hardly comparable to real reference sources with indepth information. this is the page for Vilano V, also mentioned in the article up for AfD here. I doubt that an entry for Mega will have more than a passing mention for this event, but perhaps you can provide the actual quote from the enciclopedia? Fram (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge Merge all the El Castillo del Terror's into one article. The event as a recurring promotion may barely pass GNG given its coverage in wrestling literature (I am not convinced of this) but individually there is certainly not the required coverage for this *specific* event to pass GNG. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Multiple independent sources. Several aspects of the deletion nomination are unrelated to deletion criteria. Meets GNG. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep After the lengthy back-and-forth on the merits of notability, I'm inclined to believe this meets criteria. A merge discussion would probably be a better alternative to AfD.LM2000 (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 01:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Arena Naucalpan 5th Anniversary Show[edit]

    Arena Naucalpan 5th Anniversary Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Long article with very, very little information about the actual 5th anniversary show. The only source about this event is routine coverage in a wrestling magazine some weeks later. Fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - the nomination is made on a faulty assumption that it was "routine coverage" as in "just mentioned the results in passing", so a few points below.  MPJ-DK  12:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • THe magazine has a full page article on the show (Significant), from a long-running wrestling magazine with an editor and an editorial process that is not associated with the wrestling promotion (Reliable source, Secondary coverage, Independent of subject)
    • "Some weeks later" - So this was in 1982, that's not a bad lead time from something happening to it being covered in a print magazine. I find that an odd comment, are you trying to discredit the source? In 1982 there were no websites, no instantaneous coverage. Also WP:GNG does not state "must be reported on within a week" anywhere.
    • As for content, I tried to give the perspective of the actual event, not just a narrow "this happened from 10 to 12 PM" and as the GNG states (in a section header no less) "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" so that's not a reason to AFD it.
    • No, it's routine coverage because it is only a few weeks later. It's like a full page report about a soccer match with 50,000 spectators appearing the day after in (multiple) newspapers; while verifiable, reliable and independent, it still isn't sufficient to establish notability. Instead of coverage in a newspaper the day after, this got coverage in a magazine the month after, and that's it. See the nutshell at the top of WP:N: "notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" (my emphasis). WP:SUSTAINED explains this a bit more. That's for your first three points: as for your last one: what I say is that all the other things in the article, not about the actual event, obviously can't demonstrate any notability of the event (the actual subject of the article), and that while providing background is good, there is a problem when the background is by far the majority part of the article (both in text and in number of sources). Fram (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You want to go quite-for-quote? WP:GNG "If 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"
    • Content is not notability, reliable sources provided for the actual event demonstrates the notability. That is not a legitimate reason to AFD it.  MPJ-DK  12:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also by your definition The Wall Street Journal normally provides "routine coverage" of the news then?  MPJ-DK  12:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not about my definition, it's about our general guidelines. Yes, only looking at WP:GNG may give you the false impression that that is all that is needed, but, as explained in e.g. Wikipedia:Notability (events), GNG has to be taken together with other things like WP:NOTNEWS to determine whether an event (like here) is notable enough or not to get a Wikipedia article. So, indeed, not everyting that gets an article in the WSJ or the NYTimes will automatically be notable enough for an article here, as they often cover a specific instance of a broader issue. A review of a concert doesn't make that concert notable, but the tour and artist get additional notability through that concert review. A report of game 4 of the NBA finals is indicative of the notability of the NBA finals, but not enough to give Game 4 a separate article. 13:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I've said my piece, stated my side - not interested in getting any more repetitive than I already have since our positions are not goint to change, I will just wait for others to chime in.  MPJ-DK  13:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added in more event details from the magazine source as well as the near riot that happened after the main event was recapped in a 2012 article on Arena Naucalpan.  MPJ-DK  21:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The Rust Punk Tribe[edit]

    The Rust Punk Tribe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Apparently started this year, not in 2012, and there's no sources found that can be added. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Check the reference list, and again, as no one does, the genre is supposed to make a difference as to what is considered for notability. WP:NBAND criteria 6 mentions inclusion of two or more independently notable artists, when Sin Quirin and Sean Payne are in the group, again genre relative, this group is perfectly notable -BusyWikipedian (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Genre, for the most part, is supposed to make no difference as to what is considered for notability. Sean Payne has no notability independent of Cyanotic (something your you of a piped linked backs up). Sin Quirin's notability is entirely dependent on his membership of other bands, he is not independently notable. This collaborative project is not a band in the normal sense. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete First of all, not that this is crucial, but their Facebook page has fewer than 250 fans [16]. Fails to pass WP:GNG because I couldn't find significant coverage of the band in reliable independent sources, and I don't think anyone else will be able to, either. Doesn't pass WP:BAND because there's no proof in reliable sources that Sin Quirin and Sean Payne are members of the band, so criterion 6 is not met. That list of members is unsourced. Even if Sean Payne is a member of the band (of which there is no proof), he's not an independently notable musician, as Duffbeerforme pointed out. The article doesn't even indicate why it's a notable band. Dontreader (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There's plenty of proof that not only is Sean Payne in a band, Cyanotic is his project. Here are just a few sources: 1 2 3 4
    • Comment despite the fact that I see articles for deletion that succeed even though Wikipedia notability guidelines are completely disregarded, I'd like to point out to the closing moderator that criteria 6 does in fact say, and I quote "This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre." Regen Magazine and Brutal Resonance are reliable industrial music publications. I've seen many notable metal and industrial artists deleted because guidelines were blatantly ignored, even with numerous reliable sources. And the same users are nominating articles in the genre for deletion constantly. People not involved with heavy metal and industrial culture will not know what is notable and reliable in its genre, and people shouldn't be editing articles on topics they don't know anything about -BusyWikipedian (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I would consider this expansion upon Sin Quirin related information, and justify a stand alone article due to the joint nature of the project with multiple notable people. I would list Regen Magazine and other industry sources as independent sources qualifying WP:GNG. -Steffan Sanders (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC) — Steffan Sanders (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Surprise surprise. a new SPA voting in an afd related to Busy. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm done playing your games duffbeerforme; constantly trying to bait a negative reaction from me, constantly marking articles I create for deletion, and making constant accusations. I'm not sure why you feel the need to harass me, other than the one time I made an accusation towards you, and you seemed to indicate that I didn't have enough evidence at the time. I think the evidence is beyond sufficient this time, and I ask that any closing moderator consider, and possibly look into this. -BusyWikipedian (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For what it’s worth I investigated the two sources mentioned by BusyWikipedian. While they may be reliable in regards to the information they contain, I’m not convinced they rise to a level of significance to convey notability. FYI Steffan Sanders, Regen Magazine is not a professional venture; their website openly proclaims it is the exclusive work of volunteers. Now don’t mistake this for meaning it might not have professional quality writing and carry weight within its niche, but so do well run fansites. Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS I question it’s merit as a notable publication/source. Brutal Resonance, according to their ad rates, charge little more than $100 U.S. for a months worth of banner ads, which signifies a pretty paltry audience. And while someone else correctly pointed out social media numbers shouldn’t be used, I find it revealing neither magazine has much more than 3.000 likes on Facebook. That said, I’ll abstain from voting because BusyWikipedian makes good points about editors making comments on sub music genres that they don’t follow. Fair enough. But just regarding these references (and not the merits of the nominated article) my long experience in publishing/marketing/and music indicate that these two sources are pretty weak arguments of notable coverage for this topic. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as still nothing nearly close enough to the needed substance of an actually convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, I don't see that the sources provided have enough depth or reliability to push this through on notability grounds, and I don't see that [[WP:MUSIC}} #6 applies given the relative obscurity of the musicians involved. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stars of the Lid. MBisanz talk 03:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Maneuvering the Nocturnal Hum[edit]

    Maneuvering the Nocturnal Hum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - a rare EP, which is never automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 01:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus to delete, considering that the only argument for keeping was, this has been written about in books and the web, just look it up. If it has indeed been written about, then please present some suitable sources. Simply asserting that sources exist isn't enough. I'm assuming that Notecardforfree's intent after striking their vote is to remain neutral (please correct me if that's not the case). -- RoySmith (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    List of people with dual American and British citizenship[edit]

    List of people with dual American and British citizenship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY #6: Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. No evidence this has been discussed in multiple reliable sources as an encyclopedic topic. The scope of this topic may also be too wide to be useful, per WP:SALAT. SSTflyer 14:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 14:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - There's no way this is an encyclopedic list. Just having dual citizenship of these particular countries doesn't make a person worthy for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unencylcopedic list. List of people with combined X and Y citizenship is not a notable subject in itself. A category would be an appropriate way of categorising such people. MLA (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Categories and losts that cover the same ground are entirely acceptable, so this isn't a valid reason for deletion.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seeing as my reasons for delete are not encylcopedic and not notable, the fact I offer an alternative in the form of using a category is not a reason to question the validity of my position. MLA (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, it is actually, and not just because of the guideline Prisencolin cited (have you read WP:NOTDUP?). If it's not encyclopedic information as a list, how can it be encyclopedic information as a category? It's the same information regardless of presentation format. And it's unclear what "not notable" would mean, if anything, for a list of this kind, which indexes articles. The question is whether this fact about those article subjects is useful or significant enough to merit indexing, and if you think it's a significant enough fact to merit categorization, then it's significant enough to merit listing because the threshold is higher for categories (see WP:DEFINING). postdlf (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep this has been written about in books and the web, just look it up.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete instead as it is a conceivable article, but there are also numerous questionability factors, including maintaining its integrity; also, there's the fact of simply overall listing. There's enough to suggest it's simply best deleted. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 15:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    TÜV SÜD[edit]

    TÜV SÜD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Unreferenced, non-notable Buster79 (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've searched the web and can't see any evidence of this organization's existence apart from its adverticle on Wikipedia and its own hundreds of websites. I vote delete. Buster79 (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. No need to be sorry. If you don't mind me asking, what makes you so sure the organization has "over 24,000 employees and 2 billion Euro in revenue"? Buster79 (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - WP:GNG - I have added some references. International 2.2 billion revenue company. Sufficient coverage in secundary sources. 40.000 newsitems on Google [17]. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and expand – Very large German company. — JFG talk 21:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the 21 references in wikipedia.de should be a good basis to make this article verifiable. MLA (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Act of War (online game)[edit]

    Act of War (online game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources or Google Books search. Previously deleted at AfD. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 21:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 21:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The generic name makes this rather difficult to research. There doesn't seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources. If it's there, it's hidden pretty deeply in the massive amount of unrelated hits. Restricting the search helped but turned up extremely few hits, none of which were reliable. A WP:VG/RS Google custom searched turned up nothing, either. It would be kind of nice if we had somewhere we could merge all these non-notable MUDs, but I guess that's what Wikia is for. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    Ivana Raymonda van der Veen[edit]

    The result of this discussion was procedural close (no consensus). The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. After three relists, a consensus has not been established. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 01:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ambassador of Iceland to Turkey[edit]

    Ambassador of Iceland to Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    fails WP:GNG. Iceland has never has a resident ambassador to Turkey and there is no evidence the non resident ambassador did anything noteworthy. LibStar (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep It is a list, not an article. A core tenant of Wikipedia is that it has elements of an almanac. "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    please demonstrate why this list is notable. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete The position itself is not inherently notable (Ambassadors as a class are not) Nor is the Turkey-Iceland relationship a particularly notable one. Although they do know how to kick a Futbol, Iceland is of little significance to diplomacy. We do not keep lists of all incumbents of non-notable government posts; not even the non-notable ambassadorial posts of major players, like Turkey.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep There is an free trade agreement between Turkey and EFTA (see http://www.efta.int/free-trade/free-trade-agreements/turkey). Iceland is part of EFTA and most of it's free trade agreements come from EFTA.--Snaevar (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not specifically about the ambassador. Where is the significant coverage about the ambassador? LibStar (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Final relist. North America1000 09:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep - It's at least plausible that someone could be looking for information about Icelandic ambassadors to Turkey, and I see no harm in keeping this list. There's actually a really great essay on the topic, which includes quite a bit of information on the applicability of notability guidelines to list-based articles. Kurtis (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    see WP:NOHARM. secondly there has never been a resident ambassador. LibStar (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete non-resident Ambassadors should fall below the line. MLA (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 16:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Barash[edit]

    Michael Barash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:GNG per WP:ROUTINE and has not met any of the criteria per WP:NBASE. (9th round draft pick and has only so far played in the Pioneer League) Yosemiter (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lenovo_smartphones#Lenovo_K3_Note.5B53.5D. Nothing reliably sourced to merge, but feel free to pilfer from the article history. czar 12:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Lenovo K3 Note[edit]

    Lenovo K3 Note (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No indication of notability, fails WP:GNG: no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". -- Irn (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Redirect/merge to Lenovo smartphones. I do find valid sources that establish notability they include newspapers like the Times of India, independent review sites etc. DeVerm (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: thank you Tigraan; the orphan tag put me on the wrong path (I removed it from the article). I agree that it is much better merged with the Lenovo smartphones article. When we strip all the promotional text then we are left with what is already in that article, even including camera resolution, but I'm sure somebody can distill some useful data from the article so I will leave the option of merging open as well.
    Spot on. I think a brutal redirect is enough, but I will not fight about the fine print of how much of the article is merged. (FWIW the camera resolution is in my view on the bad side of the grey line) TigraanClick here to contact me 17:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect/merge to Lenovo smartphones. There are sources, but per WP:PRODUCT, we should not keep product-stubs when a merge is suitable (Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product (...)).
    The article is not a stub right now, but if we remove promotional material (making its display gorgeous, amazing headphone experience) and the overly-detailed technical details (is the front camera's resolution really encyclopedic detail?), not much remains. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. czar 08:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Alex Berry[edit]

    Alex Berry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Non-notable hockey player since he fails WP:NHOCKEY. Only sources are routine sports coverage so WP:GNG is not met.Mdtemp (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeff May[edit]

    Jeff May (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Appears to pass WP:NHOCKEY "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league" (the Ducs d'Angers play in the Ligue Magnus, the "top men's division of the French ice hockey pyramid"). Pburka (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pburka: Look at WP:NHOCKEY/LA, the Ligue Magnus isn't mentioned at all because it is a really minor league, "Those leagues not otherwise listed are considered to confer no presumptive notability to players, coaches, officials or executives, and articles about the same must explicitly demonstrate notability under the provisions of WP:GNG, WP:BIO or other valid notability criteria." He fails NHOCKEY. Joeykai (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Article about an unremarkable minor-leaguer fails NHOCKEY, and shows no evidence of meeting the GNG. Created by an editor infamous for specious articles, for which he was community banned from new article creation. Ravenswing 05:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and lacks the significant coverage to meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. czar 12:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Tim Crowder (ice hockey)[edit]

    Tim Crowder (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Article about an unremarkable minor-leaguer fails NHOCKEY, and shows no evidence of meeting the GNG. Created by an editor infamous for specious articles, for which he was community banned from new article creation. Ravenswing 05:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. czar 12:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Mathieu Aubin[edit]

    Mathieu Aubin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: No evidence this career mid-minor leaguer meets the GNG, and he certainly doesn't meet NHOCKEY. Ravenswing 05:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gary Glassman. czar 12:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Providence Pictures[edit]

    Providence Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable company: Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Gary Glassman, who is the founder/president/person behind the company. I started out looking for sources and wondering what to do, because there's plenty of coverage about the various productions, and they've won awards, but not a lot of coverage of the company itself. However, the sources show him to be notable enough for an article, so I went ahead and created it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree with Rhododendrites; Glassman is a suitable redirect target. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. czar 08:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dan Collins (ice hockey)[edit]

    Dan Collins (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Lawrence (ice hockey)[edit]

    Chris Lawrence (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    He was on two world-juniors teams. Doesn't that meet WP:NHOCKEY? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't. Joeykai (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: No evidence that this unremarkable minor league player meets the GNG, and he certainly fails NHOCKEY. Ravenswing 05:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Only sources are links to his stats so WP:GNG is not met. Also fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY.Mdtemp (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Pooja Dhingra[edit]

    Pooja Dhingra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non Notable. Fails WP:BIO Uncletomwood (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: The BBC source alone meets WP:N: "India's 'macaroon queen'". That's international coverage. We have a poorly-written article, but one with four very solid sources that are all reliable and independent of the subject, three national news sources and the BBC. I do think the article needs a lot of work and expansion, but quality and notability are two totally different things. Montanabw(talk) 03:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. There is detailed coverage by Forbes India. --Ipigott (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There is coverage about her also in French. She was the subject of a featured article in L'Hebdo magazine [18]; a section about her in a book evaluating India's luxury market [19]; and another article in The Hindu about her newest restaurant [20]. Clearly passes GNG. SusunW (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - clearly has "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The sources cited in this article substantiate that the subject satisfies WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. On the basis that sources exist, contrary to what the initial argument stated. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 01:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Punk Rock Karaoke[edit]

    Punk Rock Karaoke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No sources to establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete This is too short of an article. 2602:306:3357:BA0:1111:C69B:24F:B6B5 (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Just entering into the wiki editing fold, but will gladly take charge of sourcing this entire article in the next few days. These guys are from some of the best bands in So-Cal Punkrock (Bad Religion, Adolescents, etc) and play big gigs constantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:7C4A:8100:952F:8283:7E06:2B9 (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Final relist. North America1000 09:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Meets WP:GNG, book sources such as
      • Emmis Communications (September 1999). Los Angeles Magazine. Emmis Communications. pp. 158–.
      • Grammy Magazine. 1. Vol. 17. The Academy. 1999. pp. 8–.
      • Brian Raftery (2008). Don't Stop Believin': How Karaoke Conquered the World and Changed My Life. Da Capo Press. pp. 55–. ISBN 978-0-7867-2720-9.
      • Garry Sharpe-Young (2005). New Wave of American Heavy Metal. Zonda Books Limited. pp. 46–. ISBN 978-0-9582684-0-0.
      • Heidi Siegmund Cuda (1 February 2003). Vans Warped Book: Tales of Freedom and Psychotic Ambition. 4 fini Incorporated Pub. pp. 93–. ISBN 978-0-9721127-0-3.
      • Maximum Rocknroll. Vol. 221. Maximum Rock 'n' Roll. 2001.
      • Gaswomi Peno. Bad Religion: A Guide. AnVi OpenSource Knowledge Trust. pp. 26–.</ref>
    were easily found and added as citations. Sam Sailor Talk! 14:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus cannot be established due to lack of discussion. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 01:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Royal Air Force Mountaineering Association[edit]

    Royal Air Force Mountaineering Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable organization tagged since July 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Final relist. North America1000 09:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Mermaid Hotel & Club[edit]

    Mermaid Hotel & Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Delete. Hotel not notable, just another hotel carrying out regular business. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete.All the references are from aggregator which list almost all the hotels, not a credible reference.--Lawedit (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - The references cited are either WP:NOTRELIABLE or WP:SELFPUBLISH. Those references cited that are WP:RELIABLE are simply mentions of the hotel in passing. I did find this article but it reads more like travel advertisement than a serious newspaper article. Everything however points to the hotel not being notable. Dan arndt (talk) 07:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Spec Property[edit]

    Spec Property (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non notable company with no major coverage in any high tier media. Aksnahar (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy keep
    1. WP:KEEP — The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion as an outcome of the discussion.
    2. WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS — "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, or accounts created solely for voting on the deletion discussion:
    1. This user (Aksnahar) was marked as sockpuppet Sockpuppet investigations
    2. "accounts created solely for voting on the deletion discussion": User contributions "Aksnahar"--27century (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Another note 27century has disclosed that they are paid to edit other articles and presumably, this may also be the case for this article. The nomination does seem dodgy as well because Aksnahar was also, almost certainly, an undisclosed paid editor per this. SmartSE (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admin Note, despite the claim made above, no finding was made against User:Aksnahar in the above SPI investigation. Although I concede the account's behaviour is quite odd, it doesn't follow that this article shouldn't be discussed because of that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete Article has a spammy tone and the firm doesn't appear notable based on the sourcing Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Afd2 tag was incorrectly applied above and page was never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--no opinion on the nomination itself. --Finngall talk 17:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nick D's right about the spammy tone but I think this probably scrapes by WP:AUD, on the basis that we have some coverage in Malaysia, as well as Australia. Weak keep Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep sources in the article amount to a WP:GNG pass. SSTflyer 03:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - WP:NOTPROMO. There's nothing of substance. The owner's bio is irrelevant to the company. The fact that they have X number of properties doesn't make them notable. The fact that they lodged a business suit isn't notable. So much of their "coverage" is legally-required real estate transactions listings in the paper that what's actually about the company is minimal. Keep in mind that the "coverage in Malaysia" is sourced to Bloomberg, not a Malaysian news source. There's no way this meets the bar for GNG, because there's not enough RS for WP:CORPDEPTH to be met.MSJapan (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't agree with "Keep in mind that the "coverage in Malaysia" is sourced to Bloomberg, not a Malaysian news source.". If you look at Free Malaysia Today's link you can see that "This content is provided by FMT content provider The Malaysian Reserve". --27century (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is routine coverage (notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops) and a redressed press release. Still doesn't help to satisfy CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Let's look at the "Malaysian sources" [21],[22],[23]. All of them are essentially reprints of the same press release - which essentially documents notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops,. For the purpose of CORPDEPTH, it is very clear that these should be discounted. We need in-depth coverage which talks in detail about the company.
    2. This [24] is more indepth, but this is a property website and not a reliable source.
    3. [25] Article mostly focusing on the owner.
    4. [26] This lawsuit is more focused on the minister and the issue with very hardly anything about the company
    5. [27], [28] Trivial or routine coverage
    6. Rest are not reliable sources or fall into trivial and routine coverage.
    There is literally not one good source which talks about the company. This is a very clear delete. (Add to that the paid editing concerns and I see a case of WP:NOTPROMO to be applied here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as my analysis has also simply found these links to be trivial and unconvincing, there's nothing else to actually suggest better thus delete as there's nothing else to suggest any of the needed items. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, the sourcing looks to be quite impressive until you dig down and look closely at it. As noted by those above, the majority of the sourcing here is either not from independent sources, doesn't cover the subject in detail, or is simply routine and trivial. Reprinted press releases do not count as independent coverage. The article is a good effort given that the author had to work with, but ultimately I don't see that this can meet WP:CORP. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete - As stated above, while some limited sourcing exists... it's all rather different than expectations. I don't think that the article passes the notability bar. Even with future revisions in order to make the page sound less promotional, I would prefer to see this all just deleted. The arguments mentioned above are pretty compelling. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given that all "keep" opinions are qualified as weak.  Sandstein  07:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    3-D (band)[edit]

    3-D (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    On the Teddy Wender bio page on teddywender.com, the claim is that U2 opened for 3-D at The Ritz (rock club) in New York in April of 1980. The U2 gig lists available at various places on the net, including here and here show no such April 1980 appearance. Without casting doubt, Wender's own website is a primary source, not considered a reliable source. Because of similarities between the article and the text in the Wender bio page (it's an image of text, so hard to do copyvio on it), I'd guess that it was used as an uncredited source for this page.

    For that matter, the IMDB episode summary for SNL is contributed by users and not verified. The Rock Peaks link does not currently have the video of the SNL segment, either. While I don't doubt that 3-D appeared on SNL, I can't verify it. I suppose the link to iTunes is for the track list.

    The refimprove tag has been there since 2009. While I realize there's no deadline, I don't see how this article can be salvaged with no reliable sources.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I notified the editors who appeared to be the page creator and the most recent substantive editor, but neither of them seems to have been active on WP for a while.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep Based on the Saturday Night Live appearance, which would suggest they would meet the notability guidelines if they were around twenty years later (they most likely had decent coverage around that time). But, we need to be wary of unreferenced content. This does need further investigation. KaisaL (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as I still have found nothing better, there's nothing else confidently better. SwisterTwister talk 20:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep as they did have charting singles but sources are hard to find, partly because of the generic name Atlantic306 (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Final relist. North America1000 08:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Sorry, but this fails WP:V and it has been in a bad state since years. I am having trouble sourcing even the most basic facts about the band even though I tried searching with the member names. While the band may have existed, I do not see any indications why it was notable. I managed to find a video of the SNL performance, but the descriptions seems to say "little known band" - and I'm not convinced that one appearance in SNL is a claim to notability. Overall, considering the trouble sourcing information and the fact that the band existed for a brief period of time, I would go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The Keep votes themselves emphasize how there's simply still not enough for substance. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Arebhashe gowda[edit]

    Arebhashe gowda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Contested PROD. Initial PROD reason was "Article is a complete mess. The book mentioned appears to fail WP:NBOOK. Most of the given references are about the underlying subject matter of the book, not the book itself." Minima© (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - the article keeps having large additions and deletions, making it difficult to know which version to comment on, but currently, although it may be a suitable subject for an article, there is a impenetrable wall of text, so poorly written I doubt it could be re-written. The "references" relate to the lead (which is unclear on what the subject is) and the "Notable people" many/most of whom are not notable. The 20,100 words in between are entirely unreferenced - I think it is a case of WP:TNT - Arjayay (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete From what I can tell it's a copy and paste from the self published book by Puttur Anantharaja Gowda, "IN PURSUIT OF OUR ROOTS". It could also be that the author of the book might be the editor of the article in discussion, and so would appear to violate WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Also the topic already exists at Kodagu Gowda and so technically is a A10 CSD anyway. David.moreno72 (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Agree with David, it's an expanded version of Kodagu Gowda and as such eligible for deletion under WP:A10. The 100+k additions would appear to be copy pasted from either other articles without attribution or from online sources. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Arjayay and others, this may qualify for speedy deletion WP:CSD#A10 under the circumstances. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Retain) : It is a History of an Ethnic Group now forming about 2 million people settled in Part of Dakshina Kannada and Kodagu Districts of Karnataka. Sufficient references have been provided. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anantharaja Gowda (talk • contribs) 09:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC) — Anantharaja Gowda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Delete I was the original PRODer. The AfD nominator restated my PROD reasons in the nomination and I still fully support those reasons. Safiel (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Even if the book was notable, which it is not, WP:TNT would apply, as the article is an un-salvageable mess. Safiel (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spam (G11) Randykitty (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Patricia Maris[edit]

    Patricia Maris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable, no sources, appears to be self-promotional peterl (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    List of large cemeteries[edit]

    List of large cemeteries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    A non-notable topic, with no inclusion criteria, an uncontainable intersection. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN -- for example, see The Largest Cemetery or Cities Journal. The complaint about uncontainable is absurd as we already have a massive list of cemeteries, which covers them all. That's organised geographically which isn't very helpful if you want to browse the biggest of them. This list meets that need and, as places like Wadi-us-Salaam are quite incredible, there's no shortage of notable entries. Andrew D. (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Clearly uncontainable as there's no definition of "considered large" and a brief Google search reveals thousands of such cemeteries. Sadly, despite the protestations of the user above, the position to keep such a blatantly OR list is absurd in itself, but that seems commonplace nowadays. I look forward to seeing his next efforts, such as List of large dogs, List of large houses, List of large egg cups, List of large rood screens and List of large barges. Give us strength. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      By the way, your first link is two pages in a book that is in no way dedicated to "cemeteries that are considered large", it's a passing mention, so that's pointless (and in a book which is simply tabloid). The second (from a clickbait/listcruft blog site) is ironic given that even the top one doesn't feature in this incomplete and uncontainable list. This is of no use to our readers. Who is going to look for a subjective list of "large" cemeteries? At least when it was "Cemeteries by size" it had some borderline encyclopedic usage. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's very normal for us to have versions of lists which rank or highlight the biggest examples. Examples include:
    1. List of largest empires
    2. List of Solar System objects by size
    3. List of urban parks by size
    4. List of city squares by size
    5. List of largest fish
    We have a category for such stuff with hundreds of entries: lists of superlatives. The concept is therefore well-established and so there's no case for deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh Andrew, Andrew. I thought you would be well aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Once we're done here, I'll think about nominating the other "conceptually established" nonsense. One imagines they have defined inclusion criteria and would rely on reliable sources, unlike the garbage you're defending here. But I do look forward to your List of large dogs submission (I'm sure I can find passing mentions of "large dogs" in the kind of literature you are propounding as reliable sources, so let's get it on!), coming to a Wikipedia near you soon! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    RamblingMan, iunless you and Andrew are very old and close friends indeed, I wish you would tone down the snark. That said, the difference between Andrew's list and this article is that this list lacks definition. A List of urban parks by size is a fine thing, a list of large cemeteries with no attempt to define the world "large" is an unmanageable thing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Good work on the big dog list redirect!! Problem is the list, like this, is entirely without inclusion criteria, it's non-encyclopedic, it's OR, it's not what Wikipedia is about at all. Shame. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OSE explains that "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." So, as we have hundreds of such articles and they include similar topic such as urban parks and city squares, the precedent is clearly established. Andrew D. (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Basically per TRM. There's no clear inclusion criteria. Might as well also create list of modest cemeteries and list of small graveyards. It is not a list of cemeteries by size. Is there even accurate, standardized kinds of data to make a list of cemeteries by size possible without it being a mishmash of what cemeteries are included in certain reliable sources, reporting data from different points in time, etc. If all cemeteries had to register with some central authority which set categories like "large", that would be on thing, but a hodgepodge list of what various sources have referred to using a word like "large" is not ueful/appropriate. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Andrew D. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      You mean keep per WP:OR? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: No consensus is clear as of yet. KaisaL (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: the list invites OR -- who determines what a "large" cemetery is? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete because it lacks inclusion criteria and lists lacking definition cannot be useful. Flag me to revisit if someone improves the article by defining tight parameters.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, does not meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG, also without reliably sourced inclusion criteria is open to editor interpretation that could give rise to WP:OR. ps. The Rambling Man, i look forward to seeing List of large cats, ROAROWWWR! Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as "large" is too vague and subjective to make this a useful list and is inevitably going to make this a magnet for WP:OR. Even if we get rid of that by insisting that a reliable source uses the term "large" the standards used by reliable sources will vary hugely. This is very different from a list of the largest of some category of object, as it is possible to objectively verify that (say) the Sun is the largest object in the solar system, whereas it is not possible to objectively verify that some cemetery is "large". Hut 8.5 21:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as there's still not enough substance to suggest its own actual article now, best of course added as a whole listed article elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sam Ovens[edit]

    Sam Ovens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Person is not noteworth Acurrentaffair (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep - Passes GNG in my mind. Jeremy112233 (Lettuce-jibber-jabber?) 16:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree delete as non-notable business man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.143.129.78 (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    No. 1 Hit Weekend[edit]

    No. 1 Hit Weekend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    NN radio program. Unsourced, notability not asserted. MSJapan (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I presume the nom rejects my deprod suggestion to merge to 99.5_Play_FM because the material is unsourced. ~Kvng (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as nothing reliable can be found to support the subject's notability. Sixth of March 01:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Pinkham[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Chris Pinkham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable. Very probably autobiographical based on creating user's edit history. --Stybn (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - WP:GNG - A quick Google search showed over 100 newsitems, and articles specifially about the subject, such as the Bloomberg newsitem referenced in the article. As such, there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources. He is/was VP at Twitter and Amazon, two top 10 websites in the world. Not mentioning the other work. I have added a sentence and source about his position as VP engineering at Twitter. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete in business vice presidents are often a dime a dozen. Lots of people in major corporations have the title vice president, and reaching such a level very rarely makes someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete vice presidents are not inherently notable. MLA (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Two relists and no discussion. I don't think relisting again has any benefits. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 01:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Urdusky[edit]

    Urdusky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Not enough notable to have a article. GreenCricket (talk) 07:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Keith Heller[edit]

    Keith Heller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Little-known individual. Little-to-no chance of expansion Nordic Dragon 07:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn, article appears to have been improved substantially since nom. Nordic Dragon 06:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A chairman of a transportation company certainly can get over our inclusion rules for businesspeople if he can be properly sourced over WP:GNG — but he is not automatically entitled to keep an article just because he exists, if all you can add for referencing is a single news article in which he's quoted as a provider of soundbite but which isn't substantively about him. I'm willing to revisit this if the article can be expanded with significantly more sourcing and substance than is present here, but in this state it's a Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I see that the article has been significantly expanded, so I did a review of the new sources provided — and while the volume of the new citations looks impressive on the surface, the substance and quality of them is still pretty lacking. I'm still seeing almost entirely primary sources (the self-published financial reports of companies and/or organizations that he's directly involved with), unreliable ones (Canadian Railway Observations), and glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage that isn't substantively about him. Source #9 and source #16 look like they might be better than the rest, as he seems to get directly named in the headline — but two decent sources aren't enough to get a person over WP:GNG by themselves if they're the only decent sources in the article, and since they're both text-only links I can't even verify whether they're actually better sources than the namechecks and primaries are. So, unfortunately, the new work hasn't changed my mind. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 14:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment; I've added a few more sentences + cites, and collected a load more from searching to work through. He appears to have been involved in other businesses too, beyond EWS/Canadian National; and currently appears to remain as chairman of the UK Coal Employee Benefits Trust. I'll have another look tomorrow and see what else can be added usefully. —Sladen (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Nordic Dragon - Unfortunately withdrawing means nothing as there's 2 delete !votes present, You can only withdraw if there's keeps, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 10:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete instead and then Draft if needed as I examined the article but am still questionable about solidity here, and thus is best deleted and perhaps restored if ever needed later until there's something else substantially convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Johnson_City,_Tennessee#Government. Namely to preserve attribution history of the (once) merged content and because Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. Next time see if you can redirect/merge instead of coming to AfD. czar 08:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Johnson City Police Department (Tennessee)[edit]

    Johnson City Police Department (Tennessee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:NOTDIR. No encyclopedic content, basically a business listing. MSJapan (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Redirect - per nom, adding also that the vast majority of US local or county level police agencies fail ORG miserably. Sure they get tons of mentions in the local press but with very few exceptions, those mentions are either about the crime they fight or personnel changes, not the kind of detailed coverage of the department itself required for notability. Also, coverage for local police agencies is rarely anything but local coverage, failing one of the prime edicts of ORG, a guideline that supersedes GNG. Pretty much the only way a small local agency is gonna be notable is if there was significant systemic scandal somewhere in its history. Note that I specifically oppose merging here. The only content needed in the Johnson City, Tennessee article is a one line mention of the agency's existence. Nothing here would be encyclopedic in a settlement article. Keep in mind that this is a general encyclopedia, and police buff content belongs somewhere else. Pinging MSJapan for his view on redirect, as that is what is generally done with articles on nn police or fire departments. John from Idegon (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure there's value in it as a search term, honestly. When looking in an encyclopedia, I'd expect to be looking for the city more so than a specific department within it, and if I have to type "Johnson City" I'll hit that first before I hit the PD in the search list. When it comes right down to it, it seems like WP:TRIVIA, and it's certainly not a defining characteristic; every municipality has a police apparatus of some sort, so we could just as well put a line in the article and not redirect it at all without really making a difference. MSJapan (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have copied the useful content to Johnson_City,_Tennessee#Police. I should have done this when I deprodded to avoid the time wasted by people who seem to prefer doing simple cleanup like this via AfD. When time allows, I try to be bold about merging and redirecting prods like this. ~Kvng (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: My inclusion of this material was reverted] by John from Idegon. ~Kvng (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I do not have a strong feeling either way about the deletion of this article. However, Kingsport, Jonesborough and other smaller communities have articles on their police departments with equal or less information. If we delete this article, those articles will also need to be deleted for consistency. Eva-psyche (talk) 00:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and no. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. MSJapan (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Two relists without discussion, I don't think relisting again has any benefits. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 01:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Monica Proenca[edit]

    Monica Proenca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    failing WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although there are opinions to the contrary, consensus is that coverage is insufficient to elevate this incident above other local news stories.  Sandstein  07:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Fero’s Bar massacre[edit]

    Fero’s Bar massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Crime story with purely local coverage. No indication of WP:notability outside the local area. noq (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Nothing indicates lasting significance or wide-spread coverage per WP:EVENTCRIT. Bits and pieces of non-local coverage, like this, but that's not nearly enough. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The fact that it has been noted outside of the local area makes it significant enough to keep. There is no need to delete a significant crime just because it does not have international coverage. Editors often want to delete crime and terrorist attacks as non-notable even with international coverage like the Germany Theater Viernheim shooting. Where is the rule that events must be deleted if most of the coverage is local? Bachcell (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:EVENTCRIT is where this is laid out, specifically: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. What does this have to do with the Viernheim shooting? Who said anything about terrorism? Bringing that into this discussion only muddies the waters. This was arson to cover up a murder/robbery. Not every tragic event is of encyclopedic significance. Grayfell (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Lets check Steve's Seven-Point Event Notability Criteria™:
    Criterion Value
    impact 3
    depth 10
    duration 3
    geographic scope 2
    diversity 4
    reliability 4
    non-routinosity 3
    Total 29

    Nope! Doesn't meet Steve's Arbitrary Event Notability Point Threshhold. Needs a bit more oomph and maybe some coverage other than the Denver Post.  The Steve  09:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)'[reply]

    @Thesteve: What to say? What a horrible event. Nice touch adding the trademark symbol in your !vote, though. North America1000 14:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - has made major headlines. the article is poorly made but that is not a reason for deletion. more sources needs to be added when this article has been Kept.BabbaQ (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, WP:NOTNEWS, if editors believe there is relevance concerning future of death penalty in Colorado, more appropriate that words are added here. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is based on news. Plenty of sources that points to notability.BabbaQ (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still have not seen any good reasoning other than IDONTLIKEIT based on article quality. That is not a reason for deletion.BabbaQ (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and I'll note this is not a "Liking"-style vote at all, it's simply an actual matter of having nothing else but expected coverage, regardless of countries, as that's what news is; coverage that is mentioned worldwide especially if it's a newsworthy subject. Other than that, I'm simply not seeing anything else of actual convincing substance. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • DELETE I see no indication that this is anything but a local crime with nothing exceptional to establish notability. Clearly a tragedy but not more than that. MB 03:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. czar 08:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Phil Robinson (American musician)[edit]

    Phil Robinson (American musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Apparently non-notable musician. Created and edited by a user whose username suggests it is an autobiography, and who has only edited this article and the related The Bliss Jockeys and Roomful of Sky Records. PamD 07:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Tagged since March 2015 as needed better refs. PamD 07:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I performed searches and failed to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources. He seems to be just another musician who performs at non-notable venues. The source provided in the article (Turnstyle Music Group) might be connected to the subject because it says, "Are you a Band looking to work with TMG? Head over to submissions page." If so, the source is not independent of the subject. His Facebook page has under 50 likes [39], and his YouTube channel has fewer than 20 subscribers [40]. I'm always happy to change my vote if reliable sources with significant coverage are provided, but at this point it's clear to me that this musician lacks notability. Dontreader (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I meant Roomful of Sky Records and The Bliss Jockeys. ~Kvng (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The two related articles discussed above have been deleted through prods. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can move to userspace for drafting upon request. czar 08:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Premi O Premi[edit]

    Premi O Premi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:NF. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 12:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. czar 08:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Rob Mignardi[edit]

    Rob Mignardi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: Another one of several hundred NN creations from an editor who eventually was community banned from new article creation. The only claim to notability the subject has is a playoff MVP title from youth amateur competition, something that no iteration of NHOCKEY has ever held to support notability. His minor career was fleeting and undistinguished. No evidence he meets the GNG beyond routine sports coverage debarred by WP:ROUTINE from supporting notability. Ravenswing 05:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. czar 08:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Battle Creek Golf Club[edit]

    Battle Creek Golf Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Doesn't appear to be notable. Can't find much in the way of sources to backup or expand article. Ajpolino (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Run of the mill local club, it doesn't appear to have hosted any major golfing events Seasider91 (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and this is nearing speedy A7 material as the state claim is still think, nothing else convincing from there. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. czar 08:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Chelsie Angeles[edit]

    Chelsie Angeles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    A YouTubeer. Only one reliable, independent reference that goes into anything about her. Blogs, her own YouTube and social media dominate. Reliable news sites just show a tweet she did and doesn't mention anything about her. Bgwhite (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete non-notable Youtube personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Congratulations to the nominator in finding even one suitable reference. But it's not enough and the plethora of trivial references on even more trivial matters reduces the article even further. Thincat (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - reliable sources making her meet WP:BASIC/WP:GNG are (not yet) found. Sam Sailor Talk! 19:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Self-pub on You Tube≠notability. Montanabw(talk) 05:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 19:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 19:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. The consensus to keep is clear (noting that the post-nomination !vote is nominator's comment), and further discussion of article title may be continued on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 03:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Irregular chess opening[edit]

    Irregular chess opening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Redundant article with inappropriate title, material is covered elsewhere and can be merged.

    The technical background to this is fairly complex so I'll try to describe it so that a non-chessplayer can follow.

    (1) The Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO) is a 5-volume standard reference work on chess opening theory originally published by Chess Informant in Belgrade between 1974 and 1979.

    (2) ECO introduced a system of classification of openings whereby all openings are assigned a code. The first component of the code indicates which volume of the encyclopedia the line is found in (A-E), the second component is a two-digit number to indicate a specific line or set of lines. For example, C41 is the code for the opening known as Philidor's Defence. ECO codes have gained wide acceptance in the chess world and are used by many publishers other than Chess Informant.

    (3) Over 95% of high level games begin with one of 4 standard opening moves by White; a further 2 opening moves are common enough to have their own ECO code. The ECO code A00 is a "dustbin" code covering 14 rare opening moves by White which have little in common with each other.

    (4) There is no generally accepted technical term for "A00" openings; they might be called "uncommon openings" or "irregular openings" or "unorthodox openings" or "miscellaneous openings" but these are more by way of description than actual names like "Philidor's Defence".

    (5) In early chess literature, the term "irregular opening" was a vaguely condemnatory term used for openings which were considered unorthodox at the time. It was never a precise term and was used differently by different writers. Some openings originally considered "irregular" such as the French Defence have since become common. As opening theory developed the term "irregular opening" was used less frequently, to the point that the Oxford Companion to Chess says the term has fallen into disuse.

    (6) If the term is still used, it is generally understood to be more or less a synonym for "unorthodox" and does not refer exclusively to the openings covered by ECO code "A00".

    (7) Back in 2002, a wikipedia article called "A00" was created to cover the openings included in this code. The article has since been through several moves and is currently called "Irregular chess opening".

    (8) In my opinion this is a poor choice of title since the term "irregular opening" does not refer exclusively to ECO code A00. While mystifying to non-chessplayers, the title "A00" did at least accurately reflect the article's contents.

    (9) The article consists almost entirely of wikilinks and has no substantive content.

    (10) The existing article List of chess openings already covers this material in the description of ECO code A00.

    (11) The article is therefore redundant and should be deleted/merged with List of chess openings. Any material thought to be of value can be incorporated into List of chess openings.

    (12) The space for Irregular opening could, if desired, be used to describe the historic use of the term in chess literature. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep there are a number of flaws in the above arguments. Firstly it is almost entirely non-policy based. Secondly even the nominator feels that there should be an article on the subject (see point 12)! This is not how AfD is supposed to work, you adapt articles until consensus is achieved.
    Irregular chess openings, or uncommon openings, as well as being mentioned in the Oxford Companion to Chess, is also based on Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO), there is a specific subsection for them. ECO is the standard text for opening classification, and is entirely notable. They also pass WP:GNG pretty easily (significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject), with a lot of sources on the web, although most have been removed from the article.
    There are the following references: [1][2][3][4][5]

    References

    1. ^ ECO - Encyclopedia of Chess Openings. Chess Informant.
    2. ^ "A00-A99". chessarch. Retrieved 5 July 2016.
    3. ^ "FICS Games Database - List of ECO Codes". ficsgames.org. Retrieved 6 July 2016.
    4. ^ ECO Chess Opening Codes:. chessgames.com.
    5. ^ "Irregular openings A00 Master Chess Openings". masterchessopen.com. Retrieved 6 July 2016.
    Also see e.g. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=a00 ; http://www.chess-game-strategies.com/types-of-chess-openings.html ; http://www.mark-weeks.com/aboutcom/aa03b01.htm ; http://www.24-7chess.com/how-to-deal-with-irregular.html ; http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/choosing-opening-repertoire . Add the following books: Oxford Companion to Chess, Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, Modern Chess Openings (Pitman, 1946), Encyclopedia of Chess Wisdom, (By Eric Schiller), Chess Book for Beginners (By A Gopalratnam). In other words there is a number of reliable sources on the subject. And even the nominator feels there should be an article on the subject. ECO codes are also used by the majority of articles on chess opening theory in Wikipedia and Wikibooks, with the term "irregular chess opening" being commonplace in the relevant articles, so an explanation of them is warranted. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Redundant" was my plain English explanation, WP:CONTENTFORK is the relevant page if you want me to cite an actual policy. Plus, "irregular opening" is not, and never has been, a synonym for ECO code A00. No amount of citation bombing can change this. I don't know why you continue to resurrect sources which are clearly unsuitable for wikipedia. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. There are plenty of book chapters and even whole books with titles like "irregular openings" or "unusual openings". These are all in ECO A00. ECO doesn't use the term "irregular openings", mainly because there is intended to be in international book and contains very, very little prose. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 19:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Ample coverage as cited above, nomination is entirely non-policy based. Smartyllama (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as nominator. I am disappointed with the quality of the arguments for "keep" (WP:IJUSTLIKEIT) and none of them address my main points. (1) This is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of material already covered in the article List of chess openings. (2) The article is based entirely on a false premise. The opening sentence of the article defines "irregular opening" as openings covered by ECO code A00 and this is demonstrably false as numerous sources (including many given here, e.g. OXford Companion to Chess) will attest. Please do not be blinded by the citation bombing, many of the sources given are very poor quality (e.g. self-published websites or obscure books that noone's heard of found by a google books search) and many of them (e.g. Schiller) actually agree with me re the definition of "irregular opening". That definition being - "whatever the writer defines it as". It is not and never has been a precise term, let alone a synonym for ECO code A00 (the original title of the article).
      This is a form of the logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. Openings classified as ECO code A00 may all be irregular (even that's debatable, what about 1.g3?) but not all irregular openings are ECO code A00. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. (I apologize for this lengthy essay, my argument is basically that "irregular chess opening" is a valid term that is useful in top level categorization, and deletion of the article would break the web.) This is an example of an unfortunately not too rare case where complaints are lodged against an article by an opponent who (with reason) would like to see it deleted, then well meaning persons try to address those complaints but in so doing actually make the article worse, and finally the opponent nominates the weakened article for deletion. (I'm not claiming this was a conspiratorial plan, it's just how things happen sometimes on Wikipedia.) Before edits were made to try to shore up the article, I think it was at least a little bit better. See for yourself, the January version didn't contain the A00 ECO code stuff and still while definitely imperfect especially with regard to sourcing, it was arguably better than the article is now. Article deletion should be considered top down as well as bottom up. Viewed bottom up, the nominator doesn't like this article for reasons explained pretty well in the nomination argument. But the article doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's part of building the web in trying to make the subject of chess openings accessible to everyone who has an interest. Although this article is several years older, around 2005 the chess project started gaining some momentum and worked on improving the most important foundational articles in Category:chess, including chess opening. Like many things, the chess opening is a somewhat difficult topic to treat appropriately on Wikipedia. The state of the article in early 2005 was poor, entirely inadequate for anyone who knew anything at all about chess but it also didn't offer much to beginners either. The chess opening is a vast subject and even a decade later Wikipedia articles cover only a tiny fraction of published theory. Taxonomy of the opening is a bit difficult, since we need an encyclopedic treatment that is accessible to non-specialists and that is not the way that most published sources treat the chess opening. ECO codes are the most commonly used comprehensive categorization, but I think a look at list of chess openings will convince most chess editors that these codes don't provide the best organizational strategy for a top down presentation of the subject beginning at chess opening. The best option we devised at the time was to use a fairly well understood and recognized division into the Open Game, Closed Game, Semi-Open Game, Semi-Closed Game, Indian Defense, Flank opening and Irregular opening. Although a few of these terms are probably a little obscure to even some experienced chess players, all of them are known in chess literature. The categories are described in chess opening#Classification of chess openings, including brief notes on the most significant openings in the category and links to the main article for each category where the reader can expect a more extensive discussion. This allows us to keep the main chess opening article reasonable without letting it be cluttered by inclusion several dozens of major openings and a couple hundred obscure variations. The nominator is correct that "irregular opening" (and also "flank opening", for that matter) do not have a single universally adopted definition (and some chess writers would not use "irregular opening" at all), but I don't think that precludes their use in this encyclopedia given that we have a need for a comprehensive top level classification. The definition of "irregular opening" is really everything that doesn't fall into one of the other categories. This is something that books such as MCO and NCO don't need because they can briefly mention some of the most obscure opening lines in footnotes or columns tacked into other chapters and completely ignore the most obscure, but it is important to an encyclopedia that aims to cover each of the 20 possible opening moves by White. The only thing that these irregular openings have in common is that they are very rarely played, mostly because they have significant disadvantages. If this article is deleted, it will break the web. Currently a reader can start at chess opening and work her way through the links Open Game, then Semi-Open Game, then Sicilian Defense and finally Najdorf Variation. Generally the articles get more specialized as the reader descends, but there is a reasonable path at each point. In a similar way, there is a reasonable chain of links that can lead a reader from chess opening through irregular opening and to Saragossa Opening. If the article on irregular openings is deleted then there is no good path to those irregular openings from chess opening. Replacing it by a link to list of chess openings is unsatisfactory since I see no reasonable way that a non-specialist could find the information that was in Irregular opening on that page. All this said, I can certainly imagine that someone could find a better top level categorization to use in chess opening that could remove the need for the irregular opening article. One possibility would be to classify the irregular openings as flank openings. It's hard for me to recall, but I think my main concern with that in 2005 was that flank openings, as generally understood, are largely well-respected lines such as the English Opening and the Zukertort Opening. The irregular openings are distinguished from the flank openings because they are rare, and mostly bad. Still, there are a lot of lousy lines at Open Game too, so maybe this isn't very important. Quale (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Both the proposer and Quale make very good points. I more or less agree with everything said here and I'm caught somewhere in the middle. I'd probably say 'Keep', but then unhelpfully suggest a renaming and substantial rewrite. Firstly, I'd retitle the article "Unusual Openings" - a term populist authors of opening books (like Ray Keene) have been using since the 1970s; it would be appropriate to start "(also known as irregular openings)" too of course, and maybe this should be accompanied by some explanation, to acknowledge and amplify aspects of historic usage. As an introduction, I would suggest describing the article content as constantly in flux and in some ways subjective, due to the modern 'repertoire approach' of chess opening writers, the evolution of chess theory, the influence of grandmaster play, and consequent fluctuations in opening popularity. Perhaps give some examples, like the Benko Gambit (originally a not very popular opening choice) or the Philidor Defence (which has undergone periods of popularity and a long spell when it was out of fashion). The main part of the article could contain a list of the more or less definitive unusual openings, and just a paragraph, probably not a list, alluding to some of the more 'middle ground' choices - like Bird's Opening, Larsen's Opening, The Colle-Zukertort etc. Some would say these are valid content, while others would say they are popular enough to avoid the 'unusual' tag. A worthwhile exercise may be to use Chessbase to shape the choice of content, by quoting the numbers (percentages) of games where these openings occur (with a reference date of course) in tournament practice. I don't think it would constitute original research, provided the stats aren't then used to arrive at any conclusions beyond basic popularity. Without getting too lengthy, I do agree that having an article helps beginners to understand openings and opening choices and move between the other articles. I'd also say that the integration with ECO codes unnecessarily complicates and may be detrimental - I'd suggest keeping this content in a separate paragraph, as something distinct but clearly related. I don't think that the two concepts are wholly compatible though and shouldn't exist side by side. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the idea of decoupling it from the ECO code which is an artifical classification anyway. For some reason the ECO editors (Matanovic?) decided to classify the reasonably common and not too shocking 1.g3 alongside rubbish like 1.a4 while giving the less common and slightly more outre 1.b3 and 1.f4 their own codes. It's an arbitrary distinction and an arbitrary editorial decision. So let's make the article no longer about any particular ECO code but about unusual/unorthodox/uncommon/irregular/incorrect/weird openings in general. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, per user Quale. And I don't see anything wrong with "Irregular" as a descriptor/term, it means simply "not regular" = not regularly seen or used, which is meaningful. "Unusual" as a word isn't as good IMO, it doesn't necessarily have the same meaning. (Things "unusual" are often things unexplored/unexplained, potentially significant, and for which there is little known.) IHTS (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Seems we have a consensus to keep the article. Do we also have a consensus to use the traditional meaning of "irregular opening" and decouple it from the ECO code A00? I'd be happy with that outcome. Also, I suggest moving the article to Irregular opening (currently a redirect). MaxBrowne (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless a disambiguation is needed the word "chess" is not necessary. The entry in the Oxford Companion is called "irregular opening", not "irregular chess opening". MaxBrowne (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But anyone reading the Oxford Companion knows that they are reading a chess book. The title won't be so obvious to a casual reader of Wikipedia. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have Open Game, Closed Game and Semi-Open Game and nobody felt that these needed to have "chess" in the title. The phrase "Irregular opening" is what is used in chess literature, not "irregular chess opening". MaxBrowne (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I see your point. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, 'Open Game', 'Closed Game', 'Semi-Open Game' are all proper nouns like 'Sicilian Defence', germane to chess. 'Irregular opening' isn't proper noun but qualifies as a chess term!? So perhaps the diff is moot. IHTS (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. czar 08:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Olivier Fortier[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Olivier Fortier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete The NHOCKEY guideline that was being used to keep this article in the last discussion has been made more specific since the last discussion. His award would no longer make him meet NHOCKEY #4. -DJSasso (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to List of Mickey Mouse Clubhouse episodes. MBisanz talk 03:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Mickey Mouse Clubhouse (season 5)[edit]

    Mickey Mouse Clubhouse (season 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Mickey Mouse Clubhouse has not being renewed for Season 5. BarryBenson (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment First reference in this article states that it's season 5 episode 1, ergo there must be a season 5, unless that's a mistake Seasider91 (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Delete the article. The reference is wrong. Right now on my Tivo I have these episodes recorded and they all say season 4 and episode 20-something. Further, I just searched Amazon and all of these episodes are listed for purchase as Season 4, Episodes 20, 22, and 23. -Dwimble (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment From what I can tell, the episodes that went into production under "Season 5" ("Pirate Adventure", "Monster Musical", etc.) have been mixed in with Season 4. Therefore there will be no actual "Season 5" on air. SatDis (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, and the only reference that ever mentioned Season 5 was at zap2it, and those pages have since been corrected and now all say the episodes are in Season 4. The Season 5 article is erroneous and the Season 4 article already properly includes the episodes in question. -Dwimble (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Christian Simpson[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Christian Simpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This page was discussed at length in the article's last deletion nomination where it was ultimately decided that it would be deleted due to the subject not meeting notibility criteria. All of my previous arguments still apply. While the actor has many imdb credits, most are for small, uncredited roles. Other references include a blog written by the actor and a site noting that he provided "additional voices" for the newest Star Wars film. He is no more notable than he was the last time the article was deleted. --TorsodogTalk 03:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep He has acted in several films, and works as a composer and a writer. Multiple reliable sources are used in the article. The article should be expanded, not wiped from existence. I am upset that I wasn't notified of this deletion request on my talk page or by any other means. I had to visit the article itself to see that a complaint was made. Page creators should be made aware when their pages are nominated to be deleted. --ColouredFrames (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because he works as an actor, composer and a writer doesn't make him notable enough for Wikipedia. Thousands of people do both of those things and they aren't included in Wikipedia. All of the reliable sources cited are in reference to his Star Wars (Episodes 1 and 3) career... yet according to IMDb he is uncredited in both of the films. Where exactly does the notability of this actor come from? --TorsodogTalk 19:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I've read in the guidelines for movie/actor articles, Imdb is not necessarily a reliable source and shouldn't be a nail in a coffin as to whether an article is deleted or not. Simpson's notability comes from his involvement in several movie series, and he is an official writer for the Star Wars website; Star Wars is an extremely notable property. I have added a citation in the article to the website for the Midwest Comic Con, which describes Simpson as having "notably portrayed...Lieutenant Gavyn Sykes in the #1 PG movie of all time". --ColouredFrames (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, three references to starwars.com are not exactly independent. For one they have an interest in generating content about the brand. Second he is apparently a writer for the same website. The blogspot references means less than nothing. So Comicon seems like all there is to go on here. From searches, it seems like a high school wrestler by the same name is probably more notable than this individual. TimothyJosephWood 13:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But high school wrestlers haven't been in the Star Wars, Harry Potter, AND Dark Knight franchises. And by the way, the "blogspot references", even though there's only one, may be questionable, but it does not mean less than nothing. --ColouredFrames (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no evidence of any significant notability. No doubt an excellent bit-part actor, stunt double and voice over artists in many films - but still not notable  Velella  Velella Talk   17:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, seeing as he hasn't held a significant role. And, on top of that, I can't even properly verify most of these bit roles. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete; seems like he has a lot of roles, but an IMDb page, a not quite verifiable blog, and a Comic-Con website aren't enough to establish notability. At the moment, there just aren't enough reliable sources. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 21:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. The arguments of the delete voters are much stronger.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Josh Roush[edit]

    Josh Roush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Insufficient citations to establish notability. Given sources are minor. Film/video credits are very small time; for example, the Greenday video "intro" is actually credited as the "title sequence" in the reference. PROD removed, moving to AfD. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Establishment5, we usually give a reason for the article meeting notability... can you provide one?HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    He has received more than simply trivial mention in the media that is linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Establishment5 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not a Vote - I was approached by Josh Roush through Fiverr and asked if I could use my Wikipedia experience to help show then notability of this article. I have gone through and pulled out information that was in the sources but not necessarily in the article yet to help demonstrate notability by showing being featured in an A.V. Club article, on Yahoo!, the accolades his most recent film has garnered in just under a month etc. If you have any questions on my edits or issues with it please let me know, it is my hope that I helped bring this article to a stated where it does demonstrate notability.  MPJ-DK  00:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • KeepI have checked the page and did not find anything inappropriate, the language used is encyclopedia and has no peacock words used. I find that it does not have infobox, so I added it. In my opinion the page should be kept but improvements may be required.Kkc knight (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Good to see lots of new, days-old accounts (Kkc knight and Establishment5) chiming in here! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note form Josh Roush (presumably) on my talk page: "I paid two people on fiverr to help me through editing the code in order to comply with wikipedias standards."HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    One of which is me, clearly, That is why I was not voting, I just helped bring out a few things in the soutces.  MPJ-DK  03:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
     MPJ, I know-- you are straight up honest! It's the other editor that is causing a question here. This is a paid editing job with at least one undisclosed editor, which means it might have to be deleted deleted on that basis. There's also a lot of IP/new account activity trying to get the article kept.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    -User Joshroush contacted me also on Fiverr for assistance. I acted as a consult to his Wiki and sent him better sources. I offered consultation to assist, did not make any actual changes to the page. I am the second he mentioned, he sent me a message on Fiverr asking me to clarify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.56.16.174 (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not A Vote I was also paid to help save this article by Roush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Establishment5 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This advertorial masquerading as an encyclopedia article fails the general inclusion criteria for Any biography and the General notability guideline and even more so the alternative criteria for Creative professionals. The "sources" are name checks and credits for several very minor films/podcasts or local mentions. This is simply a padded CV. There is zero biographical information about person because there is zero coverage of him. Even the date and place of birth are not verified by by the citation, which is simply a name check on a site that publishes submissions from readers. Analysis of references (the numbering refers to today's version):
    1. Name check on MTV there the page states quite clearly This site contains content from artists, fans, and writers from around the internet in it's natural form. Such content is not representative of Viacom Media Networks.
    2. List of articles by Josh Roush, not about him
    3. Name check in brief article is about a 30 minute film made by someone else with one sentence stating that Roush restored it from an old VHS tape on boingboing.net
    4. Local Cleveland website, quoting Roush's blog re a film made by someone else
    5. A shout-out to Roush's blog and his fan-edited version of someone elses's trilogy to make one long film on The A.V. Club website. Beneath the entry Send your Great Job, Internet tips to [email protected]
    6. Ditto about the same fan-edited film on Yahoo
    7. Simple listing as being responsible for the title sequence on a non-notable documentary
    8. This entry on the Cincinnati City Beat website has the most about the subject with 5 sentences about his friendship with the front man of a local Cincinnati band, To No End, and the video of one of their songs which is claimed to be about Roush.
    9. Ditto about the same non-notable music video
    10. Listing of a film for which he claims to be the cinematographer on readmoviesynopsis.com (an inferior version of IMDB), but which does not verify that. Note the "cinematagraphy" involved the live taping of a Jay and Silent Bob show in Australia
    11. and 12. Listings verifying that another of his short films, The Mission, an "official selection" at two non-notable film festivals. It did not win awards at either of them. See Hollywood Reel Independent Film Festival 2016 winners, North Hollywood Cinefest 2016 winners
    13. Brief review of the above film on a site called aintitcool.com.
    In short... No awards. No major releases. No coverage of either the subject or his work even in proper industry publications such as Variety, let alone mainstream media.
    Note to closing administrator The two keep !votes are from one-self-confessed paid editor, Establishment5 (talk · contribs), and from Kkc knight (talk · contribs), who clearly has a close association with the subject, see File:Josh Roush.jpg
    Voceditenore (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Despite the best efforts of a declared paid editor and another one who may have disclosed here, there is simply insufficient sourcing. As Voceditenore's analysis has shown , the references are mere notices or fan sites and other sources unreliable for notability. Sometimes, when someone resorts to a paid editor, they are actually notable but simply do not know how to write an article--we need a better way than the overloaded [[WP;Requested articles}} to deal with this; unfortunately, most of the time, they are simply not notable, or so borderline notable it will be very difficult to stand up to an AfD--those people who want to work as declared paid editors need to be very selective in what they accept, especially to overcome the inevitable close scrutiny. (It would seem likely to me that it would be difficult to earn a living at this if one is too selective about jobs at the rates usually charged, and most people needing the work may not be willing or able to pay the rates that a sufficiently skilled and selective professional editor would have to charge, which limits the field to those for whom it is just an incidental source of income.)
    In this case, I do not want to discourage the editors for speaking up properly; this article would be deleted no matter who wrote it, for the subject is simply Not Yet Notable at this stage in his career. As an encouragement to honesty, I will be willing to try to help the declared paid editors here to rewrite this, if in a few years there is sufficient really reliable material. DGG ( talk ) 10:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete.. Artspam and/or vanity. Many thanks to Voceditenore for her meticulous investigation and to DGG for adding the perspective of our policies. I can only concur with their findings. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As per Voceditenore's detailed analysis, which comprehensively demonstrates the subject's lack of third-party, independent verification.... fails WP:GNG. Muffled Pocketed 13:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficient sources to establish WP:CORPDEPTH -- RoySmith (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Noveske Rifleworks[edit]

    Noveske Rifleworks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I didn't find anything in my search other than listings in retail catalogs. With no significant coverage of the firm, I don't see it passing our notability guidelines. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep Noveske has made numerous innovations to the AR platform including a KX-3 Muzzle Brake designed to increase back pressure on short barreled semi auto rifles in order to improve function.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I appreciate those innovations. Would you mind providing the significant coverage by reliable third party sources? Thanks! Niteshift36 (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope there's more coming. A news story that the founder was killed isn't coverage of the company. The couple of paragraphs in American Rifleman about new ammo is more of a press release than anything. The other two magazine articles really seem to be more product test than coverage of the company. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Press releases are acceptable reliable sources, especially if used to generate an article. Did they ship you a blemed lower or something?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Press releases can be reliable sources for certain information, but they aren't considered coverage for establishing notability. As for your ridiculous personal attack, stay on topic sparky and save your conspiracy theories for someone else. Since you bring it up.... have you ever accepted free merchandise or other items from Noveske Rifleworks? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, unless you count a free sticker from their booth the year after John died. I do sincerely apologize, I forget how some people have no sense of humor when it comes to wiki. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother with it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmmm, you disagree with me, disagree with me again, then insert an alleged "joke" that has nothing funny about it....and this is somehow my fault for not "getting it". Now THAT actually got a chuckle out of me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • My dear Niteshift36, please keep the high ground. Mike Searson, I am not quite sure what a "blemed" is, but your comment doesn't sound good. And no, press releases are not reliable sources: there is little reason to presume that an organization will be truthful in the information it provides. Besides, press releases certainly don't add to notability. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies, I actually am asking a legitimate question. Since Mike is a prolific gun writer (no outing here), and industry writers often get gear from companies wishing to generate goodwill with opinion makers, I think it's fair to ask the question. For example, the Noveske rifle he mentioned in this review: [41] BTW, a "blemed" lower would be one with a manufacturing blemish. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the explanation--"blemed". You're never too old to learn. Anyway, that conversation should maybe take place elsewhere. I wish I got stuff from companies and people I write up, Niteshift. I'd be drowning in beer and novels. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've received a lot of stuff from companies, but I usually don't edit articles about those items or those connected to them. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: The debate is blemed as per not having received quite enough input for a decise close to be performed at this time. North America1000 03:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- current references do not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete' as Yes, there are sources and, with it, information, but I'm still not seeing anything else actually convincing including of substance, and there's nothing else close enough convincing, delete therefore. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This fails WP:CORPDEPTH which specifically requires a certain depth of coverage. While there is coverage, it is not the type which can satisfy CORPDEPTH. The coverage about the founder's accident cannot be used for the purpose of establishing notability of the company (as the information about the company is slight). Other sources simply mention a change in CEO (routine coverage) or trivial mentions about the products. There is literally not one good reliable source which talks about the company in depth. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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,WP:SOFTDELETE--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    MAN Foundation[edit]

    MAN Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No external references. No evidence of notability. Not known to Google. Rathfelder (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merge to List of massacres in Iraq. MBisanz talk 03:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    List of massacres of the Iraq War[edit]

    List of massacres of the Iraq War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This was previously prodded because there were no criteria in place on the list to assess "massacre" as an objective term. I'm not sure it's possible to do so, but the victim totals range from 5 to 800, and the classification of the items that have articles are varied: some massacres, some bombings, some a combination, and some are unclear as to where they belong. The list also claims to cover the entire Iraq War (2003-11), but really only focuses on 2005-2007, and one entry in 2010. Therefore, the mixture of information seems too WP:INDISCRIMINATE to be encyclopedic, because I wouldn't classify a bombing or the death of five people as a massacre. My definition would be "mass killings of unarmed civilians by military forces", but if the level of subjectivity is not a problem, it could probably be merged to List of massacres in Iraq, because the delineation is somewhat arbitrary, and there's some duplication, but I don't see it as a slam-dunk for a merge. I'd note that Talk:List_of_massacres_in_Iraq seems to specifically exclude military-on-military activities. MSJapan (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as the "List of massacres of Iraq" would suffice, there's nothing else to suggest this can become substantially better. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge It would be conceptually important to not inadvertently convey any tendency to suppress or to dismiss this general theme of intellectual inquiry. Nonetheless, this effort within itself is not coming close to being helpful, and the nominator and one commentator so far do indeed appear to have explained why. By the time you read the following preamble within the article you know you are in for a "true but" listing that is obviously an arbitrarily selective and uninformative subset of the topic: "This list currently covers only notable events or events in which civilians or prisoners were killed in mass; far more numerous massacres perpetrated by insurgents have occurred. It is not necessarily exhaustive, and sources frequently disagree on the number of deaths." Because this particular title / fuzzy bordered concept is quite obviously only going to confuse a difficult situation (what is "the war" exactly and what is not? what apportions a "recent" event to this list versus the more generic list?), merging the content to List of massacres in Iraq is appropriate. For example, Nisour Square massacre and Haditha massacre are on both lists. There is a rash of similarly themed articles that might be best brought together, or at least cross-referenced within a main article: e.g. Terrorist incidents in Iraq in 2014, Terrorist incidents in Iraq in 2012, List of terrorist incidents in Iraq in 2007, List of bombings during the Iraq War, Terrorist incidents in Iraq in 2010. I suggest Merge this article, and perhaps these others too, to the most generically titled, list by chronology, and hope that the one list will then see improvement over time. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge: I think a merge to "List of massacres in Iraq" would make the most sense in the circumstances. As noted above the concept of the "Iraq War" is ill defined, which makes this list ill-defined. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 calling this a delete with sadness in my heart, because it seems like the kind of topic we should be covering. However, the debate here is pretty clearly a consensus for deletion, especially since those arguing to keep have failed to provide any useful sources.

    Part of the problem may be that this person lived before the days of ubiquitous internet coverage. This is a problem which is sadly being manifested in our inexorable slide towards becoming ModernSocietyAndPopCulturePedia. If somebody is able to find some usable sources, ping me and I'd be happy to restore this as a draft for you to work on. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Suzanne Sagendorph Welsh[edit]

    Suzanne Sagendorph Welsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Not notable person per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG Kharkiv07 (T) 16:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    In the 1940', 1950's, and 1960's men dominated business. Women were not to be seen. If Suzanne Sagendorph Welsh had done today what she did in those decades, she would have been featured in numerous papers magazines and websites, etc. That was a very sexist time and we have witnessed a great change in society since then. Contemplating deleting inforamation on a woman who accomplished so much in her life with business, art and family, aside from the medical issues, because it was not notable to the sexist society in which she lived is nothing less that continuing that sexist attitude and ignoring the great strides women have made in society and in business in our lifetime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkbeltgal (talk • contribs) 03:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. One of the clearest deletes I've ever seen at AfD. This is quite a large promotional piece of original research with essentially no independent sources. No evidence whatsoever of notability. It might be good to look at Frank S. Welsh as well.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep This article needs to be kept and fixed not deleted. There are a wealth of sources available about on the internet now. The article passes WP:GNG and the subject lady has established notability. Zpeopleheart (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy? What's the hurry? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. There may be a wealth of sources on the internet but I could not find even one about this person using searches with and without a full middle name and as related to the monogramming. The only references in the article are non-verifiable genealogy sites which are not necessarily reliable references due to lack of sources and are not viewable. Likely only shows family descent and relationships. This appears to be original research. Also, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a memorial site. The argument that she would have been notable except for the sexist time in which she lived (all the way to 1987, by the way) is grasping at straws. Sally Ride, Judith Resnik and others had flown in space, Martha Stewart was an accomplished author and Oprah Winfrey's show was on national TV by the time this lady died - hardly shows she lived her whole life in a sexist era, FWIW. More importantly, this argument does not cure the lack of sourcing and lack of demonstrated notability. Donner60 (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Reads like a memorial. Just not enough material to satisfy WP:GNG. I note that there has been canvassing for this article.[42] There are more worthy targets. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    • Keep. Although she was obviously not one of the most noted people of her day, the research and additions to the article since it was tagged are sufficient to establish the notability of Welsh.--Ipigott (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: These additions are (1) a brief entry in "The Encyclopedia of Pennsylvania Biography" for her father which mentions her name as one of his daughters; (2) a reference to a book by Roger Moss but no page citation because the quote apparently does not come from the book and is only meant to identify Ross as a notable person (based on the fact that the book does not come up as a result on Google Books when her name is searched with and without middle name but does come once, in a book by Frank Welsh, probably in the dedication - also, as would seem obvious, she is not one of the persons profiled in the book: see http://www.oakknoll.com/pages/books/120345/roger-w-moss/athenaeum-profiles-a-not-for-profit-education) and (3) a find-a-grave page which lists her year of birth, date of death and place of burial. The genealogy references, for what they are worth, were already in the article. Donner60 (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep But there is a need for more sources, I got four hits on newspapers.com but can't access them because I don't have an account. I'm not getting much at all on Google newspapers, Suzanne Sagendorph Welsh or Suzanne Welsh (adding in other terms such as "Pennsylvania" etc...). Looks like a lot of OR here, and we can't use that. Montanabw(talk) 05:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This is a nice essay I hope finds a home somewhere on the web. (Tumblr?) The issue is simply that since the vast majority of the material is unsourced, and no as-yet unmined sources have been identified, Wikipedia cannot be that home. It would be a misrepresentation to readers about the reliability of the piece. I did consider whether the entry could be reduced down to solely its verifiable claims, but the article would then consist of a list of her family members, one quote from one customer, and her gravesite. That is not even close to the "significant coverage" GNG requires. ETA: I'm seeing Montanabw's comment about the four hits on newspapers.com but since we don't even have headlines or know what the sources even are, let alone whether the coverage in them was at all substantive, I think it doesn't change my view. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete instead as examining this article still found nothing close to the convincing information and simply the article itself overall is questionable enough to delete, as there's certainly not going to be any new information. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'd like to see better sourcing. Are there any books or magazine articles about her that are not on the shallow end of the web? Bearian (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Response. Using search parameters with and without middle name for Suzanne Welsh: Nothing on Project Muse, nothing on Questia, nothing on Google Books except for mention in a book by Frank Welsh for which there is no preview. Considering the Wikipedia article on Frank Welsh which indicates that Suzanne Sagendorph Welsh was his mother, I think we would be correct to assume that Frank Welsh's (world history) book was dedicated to his mother. Donner60 (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    comment The second quote that was in the article, one editor keeps deleting it's unsourced, is found in the book below about the Hagy Family. It is the source notation with pages 411 to 413 I think but under the sources. I got the book just to prove and show a citation for it . I am on travel with only a mobile so I cannot reinsert the removed part with the quote. Once that is done I do intend to move that caution up to an inline citation in article body its self. Anyone could move it back, or we may until I return to my offices. Montanabw what would be the best way to handle that? I am not sure. Zpeopleheart (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    comment @Donner60 the book you are referring to in the second part of your comment above is already cited as a proof of the quote held there within. Do you think the book is not reliable or what? Or that the full text of book cannot found online. We can certainly not go by your assumption that there may be something only in the dedication. Please explain. Thanks Donner60 , Zpeopleheart (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Where are the sources to prove that is passes GNG? This is one of the clearest deletes ever. I do not see any independent coverage to pass GNG. WP:NRVE, which says Notability requires verifiable evidence should be kept in mind. Unless I see actual evidence of some sources, I think this should be deleted. The AfD is a good place to show this evidence and if this cannot be found, simply delete this article --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This title could conceivably be recreated as a redirect to Cartoon Network if-and-only-if Toonix is mentioned there in the future. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Toonix[edit]

    Toonix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I had PRODed this article before an uninvolved user reverted me, saying that the article should be restructured to focus on the mobile game of the same name. Certainly, as long as it focuses on a non-existent television series, the article shouldn't exist. I don't know what miniseries this IMDb page refers to, but it definitely doesn't align with the plot summary and episode list this article gives. In addition, the article creator had a previous television series article deleted on grounds that it was a hoax. 23W 19:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong Keep - I'm the editor who contested the PROD. I'm not sure why 23W doubts that the IMDB page is about the same series, but both are listed as having premiered in 2013, and the IMDb page links to Cartoon Network. Admittedly, the IMDB page also suggests that the series is ongoing, and that it was produced in Hong Kong, neither of which would line up with what is stated in this article. But the series clearly exists, as evidenced by its presence on YouTube [43]. I think part of the issue, is that this "show" isn't actually so much of a "show" as it is a bumper. But the show, bumper, brand, or however you want to term it, does exist and can be sourced. I've already added several refs to the External Links section. I have no objection to merging this into another article, if anyone has any ideas. But deletion isn't the way to go. --Jpcase (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not doubting the value of the IMDb page or the references to the Toonix mobile game. But nothing about the body of this article lines up with those sources. Its contents were invented here, and no secondary source that I could find mentions any of the stuff in the article. If someone wants to create an article about the mobile game that's fine, but let's nuke this turd first. (Jpcase) 23W 21:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough point. Still, I generally only support deletion of an article when WP:GNG can't be met, and so I stand by my vote. The brand exists; the brand is notable. The game exists; the game is notable. The "show" (or whatever we want to call it) exists, although admittedly, none of the English language sources seem to mention it - no idea about the Spanish language sources. I haven't been able to find anything at all to support the episode list, so yes, you might be right about those titles being part of a hoax. I've gone ahead and removed all of the information pertaining to the TV show, and replaced it with three simple, sourced sentences. It makes for an incredibly short stub, but even just working with the three English language sources, a more interested editor could expand it a fair bit - to say nothing of what a Spanish-fluent editor could do. My view is that we let the stub stick around, that way such an editor will have an easier time getting involved. --Jpcase (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete either way. The entire article is based on a Cartoon Network image campaign about 98% of the general public didn't care about outside of telling them what was next on the channel. Many kids probably played the mobile game but have long moved on after the image campaign ended. Be it a game or on TV, this only served one purpose; filling time before the next show/commercial/game started, and it's completely ill-sourced and only of interest to kid's network crufters. Nate • (chatter) 02:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as I'm finding a few links but still nothing convincing of its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 19:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @SwisterTwister: There are three English language sources and four Spanish language sources included in the article, and a multitude of other sources (just do a Google News search) that I didn't even bother to add, for fear of overwhelming the External Links section - why don't you feel that these are enough to display notability? --Jpcase (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. czar 08:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    TALO Distributors[edit]

    TALO Distributors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This business has only had passing mentions, no signficant independent sources about the company itself. There's no assertion of notability. Felsic2 (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better and there's nothing else at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 20:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep, Talo is a notable company that produces many exclusive firearms designs for collectors.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Just saying that doesn't help a bit. Those sources don't show any notability - they just mention that the company exists and produces specialty guns. Can you find any? I'm not saying there's any source of conflict, but the guy who wrote it didn't write anything else. Felsic2 (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- no improvement since March 2016 and unlikely to happen in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Majha Naav Shivaji[edit]

    Majha Naav Shivaji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article lacks proper references and my own searches were futile. As the release is predicted by article author for September 2016, and we currently lack enough independent sources to meet WP:NFF, my opinion is that as an article, this topic is simply TOO SOON. It can be reconsidered if or when adequate sourcing (even non-English) comes forward. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete for now as there's still not the assured substance for a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    using WP:INDAFD: माझ नाव शिवाजी Majha Naav Shivaji Pranita Pawar Chakraborty Siyaa Patil Aditi Sarangdhar
    alts:
    Devanagari:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per NFF as the film has not yet been released and the production itself is not notable under GNG. Rebbing 06:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_July_11&oldid=1142622449"