Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 17 July 19 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 keep. This will inevitably be a keep DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suzuka Naval Arsenal[edit]

Suzuka Naval Arsenal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · [1])

This is a non notable factory. There are very few sources for it. Sources aren't about it, only mention it. Stub article not necessary. --Moon King (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep as disruptive - I am the article creator, but this is a bad faith nomination. The only edits this user has made are to set up an auto-AfD script in the userspace, and nominate this article for deletion. MSJapan (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a longtime reader. I saw this article and thought I needed to get involved so I figured out how to nominate a page easily and created an account. --Moon King (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please have a discussion about the merits of this article? --Moon King (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then explain your rationale as to why this particular article got your interest, despite the fact that you have been a "longtime user" and have presumably seen lots of other articles (apparently none of which ever had a problem), such that you really felt you had to nominate this for deletion (never having made a constructive edit here before). I'd also point out that you didn't need to dump AfD automation scripts into your .js and .css pages in order to AfD an article, and even then, it took you 20 minutes to execute the process. So no, I don't buy any aspect of your explanation in the least, especially because you haven't cited a single policy-based reason in your nomination to delete said article. Your behavior is simply not that of a new user. MSJapan (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know what I was doing. That's why I created the script and why it took so long to create this. I'm a longtime "reader" not a user. So I'm familiar with how Wikipedia works, but I'm not familiar with all the intricacies. I stumbled upon this article. It did not look notable. I glanced at the sources and they only discussed the subject indirectly and superficially. I decided I might as well sign up and help the encyclopedia. I figured the script would help with what I wanted to do so I set it up. Not sure what any of this is relevant to whether this article is notable or not. I say it doesn't because the coverage is not significant as I explained. Therfore the presumption is that it is not suitable for an article unless you can show how it is notable otherwise. --Moon King (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not familiar with how it works, don't fiddle with it. Why? Because the article passes notability for geographic features, and sources do exist in Japanese for sure. Here's 7000 GHits, and they're not all mirrors. There's plenty of material out there. This is squarely on your shoulders for not knowing what you were doing. MSJapan (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's quote what you linked: "Many artificial geographical features may be mentioned in plenty of reliable sources, but they may not necessarily be notable. The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability."
You have not provided one source, of any language, that does not merely mention the factory. --Moon King (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here, now go away. MSJapan (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that is a reliable source which isn't entirely clear, aren't multiple sources required to establish notability? --Moon King (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Isn't that merely an entry in a directory? --Moon King (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. It an entire historical overview of the Naval Arsenal from establishment to current usage. Since I don't have time at the moment to run out a whole translation, here's the Google version. We also have three other sources already in the article, and the other 7000 GHits, of which I'm sure saying that 10 are good would not be unreasonable. I will reiterate, as before, do not do things when you do not understand things. MSJapan (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me reiterate. The onus is on you to provide multiple reliable sources. You have not done so. You provided a single source that looks questionable and is probably a directory. --Moon King (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a directory? You obviously haven't read it, nor have you read anything else. I don't know what your particular axe is to grind, but you really need to go somewhere else, because you're clearly WP:NOTHERE. MSJapan (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you evading? The burden is on you to provide multiple reliable sources about the subject that are not merely mentions or directories. You haven't explained what the single source you provided actually is. To me it looks like a directory. --Moon King (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already said that it is a history of the Arsenal, and I have provided a translation showing as such. I have also provided 7000 Google hits. Reliable sources exist, and that is all that is necessary to keep an article. Proof has been provided, and what you "think" it is means nothing when I'm telling you what it is. I wish you'd just come out and admit whatever your personal issue is, because that is clearly what it is at this point. MSJapan (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD is about this article, not me or you. You claim reliable sources exist and point to all the g-hits but all you provided is what seems to me to be an entry in a directory.--Moon King (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I very much do think this is about you and me, whoever you are, because you are steadfast;y refusing to see what is put right in front of you for no reason other thna WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which means you have a personal reason to choose this article to make your "Wikipedia debut" instead of editing like 99.999999% of all other legitimate editors. You want to make a good case as to why this is a good-faith endeavor on your part, you can do so at WP:ANI, because I'm not going to bother going back and forth with you here any more. Sources have been provided, and that is all that is necessary, whether you agree with it or not. MSJapan (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have provided one source about the factory. It may be reliable, but you haven't explained what it is. You must provide multiple reliable sources to show this is notable. One will not suffice. --Moon King (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained what it is several times, and provided a translation - I am required to do neither. I do not need to provide "several sources" as several sources are already in the article. I have provided reasonable proof of the existence of sources, and that's all that is required. But here's some anyway: info from Mie Prefecture, a detailed breakdown of the area, a refereence vis a vis Japan confronting its history, an article on a peace group visiting the various arsenals, and so on and so forth. What you can or cannot read, or do or do not think is irrelevant. Sources exist. MSJapan (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Those mention the factory, but they are not about the factory. None of the sources in the article are about the factory either. The only one that comes close is the first Japanese language source you provided. It may be reliable. It may be a directory as well. We don't know for sure. Assuming it is reliable and non directory, that is still just one source. Multiple reliable sources about the factory, not merely mentioning it, are required. --Moon King (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is going to satisfy you, so take whatever your problem is and go away. The article's not getting deleted. You are not competent, and if you don't like that, too bad. This is why I don't assume good faith with trolls. Discussion over. MSJapan (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would be satisfied if you provided multiple reliable sources about the subject. You have not. Rather you've tried to deflect. --Moon King (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have, and you are simply choosing not to accept them, which is not the same thing as there not being any. I think the problem is that you can't read a single one of the sources, and while you know you don't have a leg to stand on, you think that harping on the matter repeatedly will somehow convince others you are correct. What's "reliable"? Stuff you think is reliable, not knowing anything about the topic? What's "multiple"? One more than whatever you're given? I will say it again, you are trying to prove a point, you are somebody's sockpuppet, you are disruptive, you have no idea what you're talking about, and you are wasting everyone's time. Whatever you hope to accomplish will not be accomplished. MSJapan (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can keep repeating that but it won't make any of it true. --Moon King (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is reliable? WP:RS provides the answer to that question.
What is multiple? More than one.
I will repeat: you provided several sources that mention the factory, you provided one about the factory. The one about the factory is possibly a reliable source and possibly a directory. You haven't really explained what the source is. Who wrote it? Where is it from? What is the reputation of the source? --Moon King (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has sources that appear to be reliable, and I disagree that the sources merely mention the subject in an offhand manner. It appears that this article would be of interest to someone researching the pacific theater of WWII... although it's so short an article, and not likely to gain much more information, so I could see an argument for merging it with another page. Which page? I can't think of one, hence falling back on the !vote of "keep".
I'd also like to comment that I disagree with assuming that Moon King's nomination was in bad faith. The nomination makes valid arguable points (even if I disagree with those points), and everything is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. At worst, this COULD be a sockpuppet issue... but why? What would be the motive, the gain? I don't see anything like an edit war going on, or any evidence of wikistalking. I also find Moon King's rebuttle that he has been lurking for a while to be a plausible one. MSJapan, please remember to Assume Good Faith... this is one of Wikipedia's founding principles, after all. Lacking any actual evidence to the contrary, everything seems to be in order. Fieari (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been here for a decade - nobody decides that their first instance of "helping the encyclopedia" is to AfD something, especially when they admit they don't know what they're doing. As for the article, there's plenty of material that just needs to be worked in. It's got better coverage in Japan than it does elsewhere, but you are correct about its importance as per the Pacific theatre - that's why I created it in the first place. MSJapan (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources in the article appear to be reliable, and also to provide substantive content. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources merely mention the factory. There are no sources about the factory. --Moon King (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The additional source brought forward during this debate by MSJapan is significant coverage of this factory/arsenal. Such massive facilities are an important part of the history of World War II. The bickering between these two editors is unseemly and should stop now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One source is not enough. There must be multiple sources with significant coverage, not mere mentions as are all the others provided. --Moon King (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moon King, I know that you are a new editor here, but I am wondering if you have complied with WP:BEFORE, before making this nomination? Have you made a good faith search for sources in both English and Japanese? Do you read Japanese? I don't and therefore would never consider nominating a Japanese topic for deletion. An English Google Books search shows many mentions of this factory in many books. Have you verified that none of them devote significant coverage to this factory? Is there an article about this factory on the Japanese Wikipedia? If so, have you read and evaluated the sources in that article? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I did some research beforehand. The sources I found were mere mentions. Perhaps the three articles about minor Japanese Naval facilities such as this one, Hiro Naval Arsenal, and Hikari Naval Arsenal should be merged together. They are not members of the four principal naval shipyards and all have very similar histories. I propose List of minor Imperial Japanese Naval Yards.--Moon King (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Suzuka factory has no Japanese Wikipedia counterpart. --Moon King (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you're finding so many English book mentions. It only turns up four on my search (in quotes), all of which are mere mentions. --Moon King (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems like a historical landmark and I generally tend to favour keeping them. I'm not fluent in Japanese, but I searched with the Japanese name and was able to find sources which showed people organising trips to see the remnants of the arsenal. There does seem to be a certain amount of importance attached to this arsenal if it could find a mention in the very brief description of the city of Suzuka (see source here). I'm hesitant to delete it at the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Clear misunderstandind of nomination's rules. Millbug talk 03:05, 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 Lost Boys Games. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 01:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Infinity[edit]

Digital Infinity (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 defunct video game company tagged since June 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:58, 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) Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loco por vos[edit]

Loco por vos (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)

Per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, the TV show hasn't aired yet. Also lacks significant coverage in secondary sources. Appears to fail WP:GNG. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Firstly, this was nominated within 7 minutes of creation. Granted, the article's creator has a history of simply creating TV articles and not returning to improve them. That said, I'm inclined to wait to see if this article improves any or if any Argentine visitors could improve, since it goes by two titles and makes sourcing difficult for those of us who have horrible machine translation. If neither conditions occur, then delete. — Wyliepedia 05:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I'd say that, sure, WP:TOOSOON applies... but on the other hand, it's scheduled to come out within a month, the information appears to be sourced, and the subject is one that is very likely to obtain notability the moment it does come out. Why bother deleting it, only to recreate it, exactly as is, in just a couple weeks? Fieari (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:46, 19 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 16:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emmasofia[edit]

Emmasofia (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 "organization" is founded by two non-notable Norwegian former doctoral students (who are married) and only consists of them. Bjerrebæk (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • "Odd Push in Drug-Averse Norway: LSD Is O.K." The New York Times. Retrieved 19 July 2016.
  • "Psychedelic Drugs 'Safe as Riding a Bike or Playing Soccer'". Newsweek. 1 April 2015. Retrieved 19 July 2016.
  • "MDMA And Psychedelics For Free? Researchers To Use These Drugs For Therapy, Not Tripping". International Business Times. Retrieved 19 July 2016.
  • "Could ecstasy be a potential treatment for PTSD?". Maclean's. 13 July 2015. Retrieved 19 July 2016.
  • "EmmaSofia and the case for psychedelic legalization". Salon. Retrieved 19 July 2016.
  • "Norwegian Doctors Say Psychedelic Drugs Are as Safe as 'Riding a Bike or Playing Soccer'". Mic. Retrieved 19 July 2016.
  • Keep clearly meets GNG, based on the sources provided by Sam Sailor. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:50, 19 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. WP:CSD#G3 hoax. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ariadna Lenham[edit]

Ariadna Lenham (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)

BLP. Only reference is to a Youtube video. Content appears to be contested and defamatory. Nothing to indicate notability. Rathfelder (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Couldn't this have been nominated for speedy deletion per G3 since it's clearly a hoax? If Lenham is a real person, and she appears to be, and if she created it all or mostly herself, we need to talk about not leaving it here while this discussion takes its seven-day course. This article is a travesty and its claims of notability, like the silver medal in the 2014 Winter Olympics during which there were no events relating to Lenham's preferred sports, are made up. RunnyAmiga (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A few very simple Google searches show that yep, literally every single claim to fame is hoax material. I removed everything that couldn't be sourced and the article is now a shell. This article urgently needs to be vaporized per WP:CSD#G3. RunnyAmiga (talk) 21:26, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perceptions Album[edit]

Perceptions Album (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 tracklist. No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 20:18, 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. North America1000 07:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soccerway[edit]

Soccerway (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 fantastic website, but no evidence of notability in third-party sources, except Alexa, which monitors every website. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No indication this page meets WP:GNG. As mentioned by nom, the only source listed covers all websites, making it WP:ROUTINE coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 06:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A very useful site in terms of referencing players for Wikipedia, but no indication that the site itself has received any specific independent discussion. Fenix down (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB and appears to be promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:10, 26 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! 09:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shonduras[edit]

Shonduras (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 seems to be a spoof and it totally lacking in notability or encyclopedic value. GetSomeUtah (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Response and question. Could you please explain how, specifically, it meets WP:GNG, WP:NPEOPLE, and WP:ENT? By my reading, it fails all three. Those three links cover a lot of territory, and this is appears to be an all-too-common Wikipedia editor technique of sending users off to hunt down the opposing side's position. Those three links don't say "spoof articles are fine in Wikipedia." Thanks much. GetSomeUtah (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Could already be said to meet WP:ENT criteria number 2 for he has at least 400,000 subscribers in youtube and was reported to have 240,000 friends in snapchat.[1] Meeting criteria 3 is still questionable though. Daniel kenneth (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.fastcompany.com/3037309/this-brand-creator-collaboration-on-snapchat-is-how-ceo-evan-spiegel-should-have-tried-to-ma
  • The notability guidelines for people doesn't necessarily mean that an article does or does not meet notability. If the article fails WP:GNG then the article fails to meet notability. I will however come back to this later. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The social media issue: I am always told social media can't be used as a source on WP (see WP:SOURCE), in part because you can buy 240,000 friends for only fractions of a penny per friend from mills in India and elsewhere. This is a well-known technique that celebrities use to boost the numbers of their Twitter followers, etc. GetSomeUtah (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you there, however, after googling the Shonduras, I came across quite a few independent sources that talk about the person. Mostly news sources if I recall. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe deckertalk 01:26, 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 00:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — Music1201 talk 19:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 19:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - On the basis of the deadline.com article, which appears to be a bylined reliable source to me, and the Streamy Award, which is notable enough to have it's own Wikipedia page, suggesting reliability. Neither of these seem to be vanity pages/awards, both seem to have editorial review, and that makes them reliable. I stopped reviewing at this point, so I don't know about the rest of the references, but two reliable sources are enough to establish notability for me. Fieari (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That follower count means nothing for ENT. And receiving a Streamy award does not mean automatic notability—and remember that those single notability guidelines are meant to be shortcuts for the existence of sufficient sourcing. So let's see the sources. What are you saying is reliable? Because the Deadline source is a passing mention and not significant coverage. czar 21:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looks like plenty of coverage. Keep in mind some of the sources don't mention the name "Shonduras", calling him by his real name, Shaun McBride. Forbes, Time, AdWeek, Recode, Tubefilter, Mashable, Forbes again, USA Today, Streamdaily, Poynter, The Verge, Fusion, Fast Company, KSL, Digiday...... not even through Google News hits. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is more then sufficient coverage of the personality to warrant their having an article. Examples; Include articles by Forbes, [2], Deseret News (never heard of them) [3] and the Shorty Awards [4]. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:59, 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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) Feel free to redirect or recreate in Wiktionary. czar 04:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giganomics[edit]

Giganomics (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 content Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – I have copied content into the article from an earlier revision of it. It now has some content. North America1000 07:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "giganomics" is an ill-defined and glorified neologism for precarious self-employment. It has not received any scholarly attention (at least no article citations pop up in the EBSCOHost database). Right now the article only defines the term and documents its use by news outlets, without providing any content as to the term's original creation (by whom? when? where?), the number of persons affected by "giganomics", the role of giganomics in the broader economy, its differentiation from precarious self-employment, etc. "Giganomics" belongs into the Wiktionary, not into an encyclopedia (at least, not yet). --Arbraxan (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe deckertalk 01:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If I am reading this correctly, "giganomics" is essentially another name for what is more commonly referred to as the "gig economy", which definitely has received scholarly attention. If there were a standalone gig economy article, I would suggest redirecting it there - however, gig economy currently redirects to temporary employment, which is literally correct but a bit misleading (the gig economy works far more through the likes of Uber or Airbnb than through traditional employment agencies). PWilkinson (talk) 22:11, 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 00:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — Music1201 talk 19:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 19:11, 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. It has be turned into a disambiguation page (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsh[edit]

Adarsh (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 article does not conform with WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Additionally, the creator of the article has been blocked as a sockpuppet. — Music1201 talk 19:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How difficult is it to convert it into a disambiguation page? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm flagging this for the disambiguation folks but converting this into a disambiguation page would seem to violate WP:PTM. It's a first name only, not a title match. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A7 tagged and correctly identified by Adam9007 as out of scope and declined, and now at AfD per WP:NOTADICTIONARY that describes the differences between how proper nouns are handled here and on Wiktionary. I have for now done a bit per MOS:APO in that regard, infobox, references, started populating the people list, stuck a {{Look from}} in /* See also */ etc. but dabification is usual practise. If Dharmadhyaksha would double check me, please. Sam Sailor Talk! 23:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per @Sam Sailor:'s work. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems like an obvious keep to me since it's now a name index. Music1201, would you like to withdraw? -- Tavix (talk) 23:30, 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) — Music1201 talk 16:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DargonZine[edit]

AfDs for this article:
DargonZine (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 online magazine tagged since June 2008. Both of the 2 earlier AfDs were closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You'd think that such a long running zine would have something out there, but there's really not much. I found a mention in this publication, plus it looks like it was listed in a directory by Michael Strangelove and was one of only 26 of its type that were included. However I can't verify how in-depth the first link is and even if the second was seen as exclusive, it's still a directory. It looks like the University of Toronto has access to an archived version of the zine. I initially thought that this meant that they were hosting this in their archives, which would count for something since digital archiving is so expensive and time consuming that most major institutions will only archive things that they believe are of specific importance. However this doesn't seem to be the case and I can't really determine who exactly is doing the archiving here - I get the impression that it's general public access, though. I'm adding this info because it's one of several small things that give off the impression that there should be more out there, however I'm not really finding anything definite so far. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a pioneering zine. As I said to the first afd & summarize now: Doesn't predate the internet, but from the early days of the internet, where quite a lot of notable things had no conventional RSs. This one, however, does: It meets the basic requirements of having an ISSN, and being listed in Ulrichs, as a full entry , which confirms the basic information in the article and is a RS, for it. It's even in worldCat, -- and 80 WorldCat libraries have chosen to catalog it, which is not all that common for ezines. In addition to the source found by TokyoGirl here, there's a reliable signed short review in a selective publication, which I copy here, Magazines for Libraries, (Jan 12, 2009; ISSN: 1080-9910) "DargonZine is the product of the "Dargon Project," a "shared world" of amateur writers who author the fiction featured in this electronic resource. Many authors write with regard to a common milieu, sharing settings, and characters. Stories included in this e-zine are related to Dargon, a fantasy world that is predominantly human, at a late-medieval technology level, where magic is relatively rare. The concept is novel, and the stories are usually compelling and entertaining. Access is entirely online and free at www.dargonzine.org. (Donovan, Carrie)" (MforL is to some degree the equivalent of Choice, though not limited to academic titles.) DGG ( talk ) 10:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG's rationale and my own comments above. The coverage of this isn't insanely heavy, but what is out there does suggest that this is a notable example within its type, as it was specifically highlighted in the EoSF and at least one point in time was singled out to be archived. As someone who is currently studying in the field of digital archiving, that's not something that's done lightly, as archivists need to justify the time and money put into the initial and future archiving, which can be quite substantial. Honestly, after taking these classes I would suggest that a person/outlet's materials getting archived by a major institution should count towards notability, akin to how an artist showing their work at a major art museum would contribute towards their notability. (Albeit I'd argue that this should only count if the archived material is done as part of a large amount of content that is archived under the individual or organization's name, as opposed to one piece semi-arbitrarily being in a large collection filled with other people's documents.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tokyogirl79's research into notability. Jclemens (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 21:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top Trumps Books[edit]

Top Trumps Books (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:NBOOK. Notability is not inherited from Top Trumps. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:50, 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. Michig (talk) 07:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Heritage Language in Toronto[edit]

Italian Heritage Language in Toronto (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 about use of the Italian language in Toronto, which is written much more like an essay than an encyclopedia article, has significant POV overtones ("The Italian language is considered to be quite pleasant sounding to many non-native speakers thus there are many people in Toronto who will seek out Italian language media, products or facilities regardless of whether they speak the language or not."), and is sourced mainly to the self-published primary source web pages of organizations mentioned in the text rather than to reliable source coverage about the topic: the only genuinely independent sources here are a raw table of demographic statistics, and articles about the use of Italian in Italy and the United States rather than in Toronto or even Canada (and one of those citations, further, fails to even specify the name of the publication that published it, thus making it entirely unverifiable.) A real, properly encyclopedic and properly sourced article about this topic might very well be be possible -- but this, as written and sourced, is not that article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 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 keep. My error, I'm withdrawing this DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Veterinary Nursing Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:
New Zealand Veterinary Nursing 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)

No significant 3rd party sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've got me confused. Your !vote in the 2nd nomination was as follows:

"keep we normally keep the page on the major national association in each profession. DGG ( talk ) 5:57 pm, 5 June 2016, Sunday (1 month, 14 days ago) (UTC+12)"

What's changed in the meantime? Schwede66 09:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:55, 19 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 04:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zumic[edit]

Zumic (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 reliable third-party sources on or about this topic to establish its notability; this page is dependent almost entirely on references to Zumic's website, which I'm sure is a reliable source in and of itself to use but not deserving of its own article. Dan56 (talk) 16:53, 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 05:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. per nomination, + a search turns up nothing better for establishing notability.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:28, 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 09:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — Music1201 talk 17:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 18:15, 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. czar 04:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Narada Film and Television Music Sampler[edit]

Narada Film and Television Music Sampler (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:NALBUMS. MSJapan (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:29, 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 04:51, 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 09:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — Music1201 talk 17:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.. and while redirect "might" have been a consideration, I feel Narada Productions also fails notability standards of WP:CORP. Wow. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another one! This clearly fails GNG and WP:NALBUMS. There is literally no independent third party coverage and I don't see any other criteria for NALBUM being fulfilled either. Compilations albums generally tend to be not notable anyway. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:17, 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. czar 04:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Next Generation – Narada Sampler[edit]

The Next Generation – Narada Sampler (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)

Unsourced article. Fails WP:NALBUMS. MSJapan (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 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 04:51, 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 09:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — Music1201 talk 17:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another one! This clearly fails GNG and WP:NALBUMS. There is literally no independent third party coverage and I don't see any other criteria for NALBUM being fulfilled either. Compilations albums generally tend to be not notable anyway. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:16, 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. czar 04:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stories (A Narada Artist Collection)[edit]

Stories (A Narada Artist Collection) (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 meet WP:NALBUMS. MSJapan (talk) 06:29, 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 04:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:01, 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 09:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This clearly fails GNG and WP:NALBUMS. There is literally no independent third party coverage and I don't see any other criteria for NALBUM being fulfilled either. Compilations albums generally tend to be not notable anyway. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:11, 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. Tone 16:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pritam Panda[edit]

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

This person faked his credentials as reported here: http://odishasuntimes.com/2016/03/18/exclusive-interview-fashion-designer-pritam-panda-expose/

http://odishasuntimes.com/2016/03/19/pritam-panda-expose-exclusive-interview-ram-ratan/

This guy is not recognized nationally and internationally and he photoshopped pictures from the facebook posts of Wissam Hanna. Wissam Hanna is not known in Odisha and Odiya journalists found a local hero. These journalists didn't verify anything and published news.

In 2013, timesofindia's Bhubaneswar edition reported that he is nominated for Murex Global Fashion Award and a simple google search will tell that there is no such award as Murex Global Fashion Award.

This news is a hoax as the fashion award doesn't exist.

In 2010 Indian newspapers reported that he won 2010 World Chopard Young Entrepreneur Award.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indian-designer-nominated-for-World-Chopard-Young-Entrepreneur-Award/articleshow/6853932.cms

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101105/jsp/orissa/story_13140889.jsp

A google search will prove that there is no such award as World Chopard Young Entrepreneur Award.

Rambo X-Terminator (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rambo X-Terminator for marking this for deletion. If you didn't I would have marked it myself. It is such a shame I fell for the newspaper publications back then. --Psubhashish (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately Wikipedia has again fallen prey to shoddy journalism and help facilitate an elaborate hoax. —SpacemanSpiff 07:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 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. Tone 16:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Mahmood[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Arif Mahmood (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)

Per source searches, this subject does not appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:BASIC. Sources found using the Indian Newspapers Search Engine are about a different subject (e.g. [5]). North America1000 14:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The previous AfD discussion listed in the box at the upper-right is about a different subject. North America1000 15:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: clearly this topic is not primary, though it should be notable. Consider disambiguation first. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:35, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 00:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Hart (musician)[edit]

Jason Hart (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)

Has had a notability template since 2014 and appears to fail to meet WP:NMUSIC. He is a session guitarist who later formed The Orange Lights, who themselves are at AFD. Even if The Orange Lights were notable, there's nothing to suggest that Jason is independently. KaisaL (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. His band is not notable either. Meatsgains (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Following on from my comment at The Orange Lights, I'm alarmed that you consider that link as something relevant enough to even bring up as coverage. It's a small corner of a local newspaper's website, running a series on "the best of the city's music talent". Are you suggesting that this sort of thing actually indicates notability at all? Wikipedia would become a hive of articles about local unsigned bands if it did. It just worries me a bit that you would throw out such links, what in that article would form the basis for even a merge? It's essentially a press release, overstating achievements (those festivals were as a session musician) and the usual cliché of listing his producer's famous bands. As an aside, that piece strengthens my view for straight deletion, no merge. KaisaL (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really, identified coverage (and no, it's nothing like a press release) makes you more inclined to delete? Bizarre reasoning. You don't seem to understand the difference between being notable enough for an article and being worth mentioning in another article. If we have an article on a band, one of the key band members' previous bands and solo work is certainly worth mentioning there. --Michig (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's especially civil to suggest a fellow administrator doesn't understand the notability guidelines. I'm very familiar with local music press and it simply isn't relevant - The Orange Lights themselves shouldn't have an article, and an obscure session musician therefore doesn't need any coverage either. I think I'll leave my arguments on that there. KaisaL (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still nothing substantially better and searches haven't found nothing, simply nothing else to suggest better at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 27 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. Hut 8.5 22:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Root (ice hockey)[edit]

Jesse Root (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) 19:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG and NHOCKEY. Being named to the Ivy League team is not enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, he seems to be playing in the EBEL league, which is a top-level hockey competition. --Tone 16:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:NHOCKEY/LA, the EBEL league is a lower tier league. So I think he would need evidence of significant coverage to demonstrate notability. 19:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 00:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murdoch MacLeod[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Murdoch MacLeod (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)

An exhaustive discussion here concluded that this awards did not confer notability. MBE does not either (though CBE does) There's nothing else that shows notability . The sources appear to be mere press releases. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD was relisted twice, making this the fourth listing of this article. I find the repeated attacks on the winners of this award a little disappointing.
Also the previous AfD made it clear that this person is often known as "Murdo MacLeod". Not including the search teem for that indicates a lack of WP:BEFORE.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has had a long time to improve, yet relies on the award (for which notability is contested) for notability. I've searched for reliable third party news mentions and not found any. In fact it is really difficult to find anything about this specific individual which isn't advertising or marketing output. I don't believe this article passes WP:BIO and I can't find any evidence this individual is notable. I don't buy the idea that the award satisfies Wp:Before - it's essentially a 'job for the boys' industry hand-out given to a lot of glad-handing people after years of service, at let's face it, local level, and not national level. The recipients are local awards - it's just the grandiose title which implies - perhaps less than ingenuously - a national achievement. Onus should be on the article writer to demonstrate that this individual is notable, and that the award does in fact satisfy WP:Before and WP:Anybio - which I've yet to see any evidence of, other than pure assertion. I'll gladly change my mind if this can be demonstrated.Tonyinman (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • These awards are covered nationally, including on the Government's web site. The Queens Award For Enterprise Promotion is not a "local awards" it is national, and is awarded to a small number of people every year. Nor are they "jobs for the boys", the physical award consists of a piece of crystal glass, and the only other tangible benefit is garden party invite. I would imagine the majority of recipients are left out of pocket due to travel and sartorial costs.
    • Note also, that unlike the other Queens Awards these are for life, and are to individuals and not organizations.
    • There may be reasonable alternatives to "keep" but "delete" is not one of them
    • Closer should note that the above user's edits since September 2015 have been almost exclusively about deleting or otherwise worsening the coverage of this award and its winners, effectively becoming an WP:SPA since that date.
    • All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment noted; but will not be dignified with a response. Tonyinman (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rich Frustration noted, but one can't become an SPA, that's akin to becoming a virgin. Specialist or single-minded maybe, but specialisation seems an effective strategy given the complexity here. I'm presuming we all agree with notability, but without additional backpressure on (the systemic bias of) promotion, how are we meant to keep the place tidy? Widefox; talk 15:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BIO failure and a BLP lacking strong secondary sources. I haven't checked sourcing myself, so nothing against userfying if I'm wrong and someone desires. Delete is right for this WP:permastub. (back of my mind is phrase "promo promo"). Widefox; talk 09:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment trying to understand the lack of participants at the 1st AfD, and the closure as no consensus. Ping User:Jkudlick to generate more participants and suggest admin closure (not suggesting anything untoward last time). Widefox; talk 10:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I closed the last AfD as no consensus because it had already been relisted twice (relisting more than twice is done only in extreme circumstances) with no participation after the second relisting and there was clearly no consensus. As it had been more than 168 hours since the second relisting with no additional comment, I performed a non-admin closure. Discussion on whether receiving the Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion makes the recipient notable should take place on the talk page there, but the only such discussion was two sentences this past April. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 10:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it's clear that notability is due to the award (WP:NOTINHERITED applies) a BLP permastub better redirected? I would have closed Redirect myself, so no, it's not clear to me, but User:Jkudlick, this provides an opportunity to !vote here. Widefox; talk 16:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by all means as there's still not convincingly enough to suggest an actually substantially better article, I haven't found better. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- nothing comes up on Google books. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passing mention in what appears to be an advertorial. Tonyinman (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not notable for stand alone article (or in this case, stub). Kierzek (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rich is adding various pieces of biographical content, some of which are either WP:OR or not backed by reliable sources. I'm taking a break from this, and leaving it to others to look at the edit history if interested. Tonyinman (talk) 20:06, 30 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. Tone 16:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Hsu (disambiguation)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Norman Hsu (disambiguation) (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)

Two-entry disambiguation pages are discouraged, there is a clear primary topic, and nothing in mainspace even links here. Anyone looking for the latter entry will find it via the hatnote on Norman Hsu. I'm not even sure the first AfD applies to this page as a dab page, or that AfD is the right venue for dab pages, but I am sure that this page should not exist. —swpbT 14:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete AfD is the main venue for dabs; page is pretty much the same as when nominated, and then withdrawn, by me in 2009. This clearly is a WP:2DABS situation, where readers are inconvenienced rather than helped by being sent to a dab instead of a direct hatnote to the article. Only couldn't prod it because of previous AfD. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there's a primary topic (and I think there is) then the existing hatnote is all we need. Should we add more distinguishing detail to that hatnote? The two men have a confusingly similar approach to Californian campaign finance! Certes (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: hatnote on primary topic page is sufficient. PamD 15:49, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 00:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Conventioneers[edit]

The Conventioneers (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, no reliable sources, none found via Google. AussieLegend (✉) 14:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable YouTube channel lacking reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In theory, having aired on a nationally distributed television channel would be a valid WP:NMEDIA pass — however, that distinction cannot be merely asserted, but must be reliably sourced as true. But even on a ProQuest search, I found no viable sources about this, and a television series that cannot be reliably sourced does not get an inclusion freebie just because it existed. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I feel my recent revision of the article makes it worthy of having on Wikipedia. This is a nationally run TV show that got some international exposure and was the centre of some controversy. Damnedfan1234 (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You relied almost entirely on primary sources, like press releases and Facebook posts and one of the hosts' own self-published website about himself and the show's "our programming" profiles on the websites of TV stations that carried it and its own self-published Indiegogo campaign. Out of 22 sources you added, 20 of them are completely unacceptable as referencing — and the only two that count for anything at all toward notability, Xtra and The Globe and Mail, don't count for very much as they both glancingly namecheck the show's existence in the process of failing to be about the show. They'd be perfectly fine if the rest of the sourcing around them cut the mustard — but they're not substantive enough to get the article kept if they're the only reliable sources in the mix. This is not how you get a television series over WP:NMEDIA — to support notability, a source has to be media coverage about the show, in sources that are fully independent of the show's own PR materials. Bearcat (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete instead as I have also found nothing better and the listed sources are simply not at the levels of confirmed convincing of significant. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 27 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. Hut 8.5 21:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stoycho Atanasov[edit]

Stoycho Atanasov (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. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 14:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amika Shail[edit]

Amika Shail (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)

Possibly failed WP:NACTOR and WP:MUSBIO I proposed this article for deletion but however the author removed the tag by adding 2 sources (Official website and othe non-rs source). Google search show nothing better in reliable sources to pass WP:NOTABILITY. Thank You – GSS (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Userfy per WP:TOOSOON. I had to get past the horrendous writing, but once I did I am mostly seeing puffery and promotional material, the credits to date are too minor. She may be there in a few years, but she's not yet. That said, if the article creator cares about this article, I recommend it be userfied to their space where they can work on it and add to it at their leisure, perhaps re-submitting it after there is more content and accomplishments. Montanabw(talk) 23:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only refs cited are the subject's web page and something called Awesong.in, which is absolutely not a reliable source. I've looked for better sources. I cannot find any, let alone significant, coverage in reliable sources. The subject is not notable, or at least not yet notable. David in DC (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a YouTube search brings up some appearances on talent show Indian Idol, but I can't find any more information about this which might indicate notability. She also seems to have won 3rd place in another TV singing contest Bharat Ki Shaan: Singing Star, although that page lacks citations! Any other sources found? MurielMary (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MurielMary: Yes, there are some videos for her appearnce but we can not use YouTube vedio link as reliable source to support notability also the previous deletion was Expired BLPPROD and the article was unsoured. GSS (talk) 11:00, 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. Tone 16:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aniket Jadhav[edit]

Aniket Jadhav (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 evidence that he played on senior level or in a fully professional league. The Banner talk 11:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not sure what WP:FOOTY means by "Tier 1 International Match" but Jadhav has played in U-17 World Cup for India ref. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 14:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:NFOOTY requires a player to have played in a senior international match to be deemed notable. The under-17 world cup would not be enough to make him notable. Kosack (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY having never played in a senior fixture for club or country. Not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Kosack (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like to mention that even though he is 16 years old and hasn't made a senior team appearance but he is one of the most talented and upcoming players in India. I have edited the article(please visit the article page) to add more information and new citation links meaning the subject has more than enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Reliable source on football Goal.com has at least 14 articles where Aniket Jadhav is mentioned extensively playing football for his club and Indian National Youth Team. Below are the links:

[1] [2] [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] [13] [14] [15] Football india (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.goal.com/en-india/news/136/india/2016/05/23/23856042/aiff-youth-cup-india-0-0-korea-republic-india-show-heart-but-end-
  2. ^ http://www.goal.com/en-india/news/1064/i-league/2014/10/01/5146667/pune-colts-triumph-in-chandigarh
  3. ^ http://www.goal.com/en-india/news/136/india/2016/05/15/23564672/aiff-youth-cup-india-2-2-malaysia-blue-tigers-come-back-from-two-
  4. ^ http://www.goal.com/en-india/news/136/india/2016/05/17/23636622/aiff-youth-cup-india-1-3-tanzania-blue-tigers-succumb-to
  5. ^ http://www.goal.com/en-india/news/23412/world-cup-u-17/2016/06/25/25024842/world-cup-under-17-india-colts-register-an-emphatic-win-in
  6. ^ http://www.goal.com/en-india/news/136/india/2016/05/17/23617182/aiff-youth-cup-players-watch-top-three-india-players-versus
  7. ^ http://www.goal.com/en-india/news/136/india/2016/05/20/23728772/aiff-youth-cup-nicolai-adam-i-cant-find-a-single-left-footed
  8. ^ http://www.goal.com/en-india/news/23412/world-cup-u-17/2016/06/30/25184772/u17-world-cup-norway-under-16-2-0-india-u17-report-stalins
  9. ^ http://www.goal.com/en-india/news/136/india/2016/02/22/20590122/india-colts-pick-their-first-win-in-south-africa
  10. ^ http://www.goal.com/en-india/news/2715/india-colts/2016/07/08/25431482/u17-world-cup-bayer-leverkusen-u17-3-0-india-u17-young
  11. ^ http://www.goal.com/en-india/news/136/india/2016/05/19/23721132/aiff-youth-cup-india-0-4-usa-blue-tigers-take-severe-beating
  12. ^ http://www.goal.com/en-india/news/136/india/2016/02/15/20360712/india-under-17-suffer-a-4-1-defeat-to-turkish-side
  13. ^ http://www.goal.com/en-india/news/2715/india-colts/2016/05/13/23464902/aiff-youth-cup-nicolai-adams-india-u-16-team-announced
  14. ^ http://www.goal.com/en-india/news/136/india/2015/12/18/18461492/abhishek-yadav-india-doesnt-lack-in-talent
  15. ^ http://www.goal.com/en-india/search?q=Aniket+Jadhav
  • Delete - There is no question that the subject fails WP:NFOOTY. There are a good number of articles which mention Jadhav, as Football india has pointed out. However, WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis original). This means that mere mentions of the subject, regardless of the number of articles in which the subject is mentioned, are insufficient; match reports such as this are debarred by WP:ROUTINE from being considered in support of a subject's notability, though they can be used to support facts. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 07:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. The comment with the numerous links above does not show GNG. All the sources provided are routine match reporting. There is not a single source contained within them that is dedicated to the player bar this which does discuss the player in a little detail but is focussed more on youth football in India in general.
Looking at the other sources, for example this source noted above contains axactly one sentence in a match report on the player. This sort of reporting is never considered acceptable for GNG as it by definition is never dedicated to specific players and is produced for a huge range of team ranging from national media dealing with top level competition to local media dealing with regional amateur competitions. Fenix down (talk) 07:57, 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 merge (but keep for now). I know this is very much a non-standard closure, but there is a reason for it - numerically the outcome of this discussion is clearly in favour of merging, but we have to go deeper than that as AfD is not a vote. The reason for the merge !votes is almost universally because the subject is notable only for one event, although various policies and guidelines were mentioned they all boil down to not having notability outside of the context of the attack in Nice. A good proportion of the arguments to keep were based on comparisons with other perpetrators with articles of there own, particularly Anders Behring Breivik, but those were refuted based on the much more extensive (in terms of both volume and scope) coverage in their articles. One argument, made by both keep and merge voters was WP:SIZE - the latter basing their view on the size of the article at the time of their comment and the former based on predictions of article length in the future. Predictions of article size are weak arguments when dealing with articles that are not about scheduled events or clearly foreseeable coverage, for example if Lahouaiej-Boulel had survived the attack it would not require a crystal ball to know there would be extensive coverage about a trial or reasons why he could not stand trial. However he is dead and so this coverage will not happen, and so the future shape of the article is much less clear so I found the "merge now, possibly split later" comments the stronger. In total I found that around half the keep votes were either successfully refuted in whole or in part or were so weak as to not need refuting (there were only 3 explicit delete comments, and one of them was, while tragic, not relevant here).

Had I left it there, I would have just closed this as "merge" and moved on. However, there would be little point recommending a merge if it would just overwhelm the target article, particularly when most of the merge votes were actually "merge now, split again later if needed" so I had a look at this article and the target article, and a straight copy would clearly overload the main article. However there is quite a bit of duplication, and so I mentally subtracted that and the result was very borderline - so much so that if this were a merge discussion I probably shy away from offering an opinion one way or the other. Closing this AfD though doesn't give me that luxury, so I am swayed by E.M.Gregory's last comment to the discussion from 2 days ago changing their !vote from merge to keep on the basis of then-breaking news. Accordingly I am closing this AfD with a note that there was a clear consensus in favour of merging, but to hold off merging for a few weeks or so. If after that time the article is still about it's current length and there isn't significant additional coverage, of e.g. subject's relationships with the (alleged?) accomplices, then a merge discussion will be worthwhile. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS in case it is not clear above, there is consensus that Lahouaiej-Boulel is not notable independently of the attacks in Nice, but it is borderline wheher there is enough written about him in that context to justify a spinout article from 2016 Nice attacks on article length grounds. If the amount of non-duplicated content increases in the next couple of weeks the article should almost certainly not be merged, if it does not then a merge discussion to confirm the consensus arrived at here (there could be other significant changes in the meanwhile) is recommended. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel[edit]

Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel (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 subject is not notable outside the context of the 2016 Nice attacks. No need for his own article; delete and redirect to 2016 Nice attack. GSMR (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the following on the article Talk page too:
My view is that considering the high death toll of the Nice attack and its corresponding significance, this justifies having a page solely for the attacker. I think this is the general rule that has been followed. For example, Ibrahim El Bakraoui, Khalid El Bakraoui, Najim Laachraoui and Mohamed Abrini and Osama Krayem all have their own individual Wikipedia pages despite being only involved in a single attack (Brussels)
Amedy Coulibaly also has his own page even though he was notable for his involvement in a singular event.
These are clear precedents for an individual page. The proposed deletion should be removed/rejected
Dave8899 (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size.
--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perpetrator is subject to have committed a mass killing which is noteworthy, per CRM#2. Jim Carter 16:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the CRM#2 as follows: The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.[11]
obviously fulfills that description exactlyDave8899 (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CRM#2 also says "Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." It's WP:TOOSOON to know about persistence. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This person killed over 80 people, and wounded 200 more, do you really think that nothing more is going to come out regarding this person? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know there will be? WP:CRYSTALBALL--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that when this AfD runs its 7 day course we will know for sure by then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing my opinion to (Merge to 2016 Nice attack#Perpetrator) based on WP:SIZE. It has been a few days now, and nothing major has come forward to expand the article beyond its current state. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per CRM#2. Very unusual way this attack was carried out etc.BabbaQ (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not particularly unusual: see Vehicular assault as a terrorist tactic. Neutralitytalk 00:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So everybody that has ever been described as "strange" and "unusual" should be allowed a Wikipedia article? That isn't exactly what WP:NOTABILITY means.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the type of attack being notable which falls under CRM#2. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the caveat "Where there are no appropriate existing articles"--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can not have a AfD and a Merge discussion going on at the same time. One is ongoing at the articles talk page. Either close this or the merging discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

  • Keep. It was the deadliest attack in France committed by a single perpetrator. Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel is obviously notable as well as the infamous mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik.Russian Rocky (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Breivik had a notable trial, and then a notable imprisonment. Still could do more. This guy's done doing things. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The key difference between Bouhlel and all these other attacks is that these other perpetrators' articles actually offer a comprehensive biography of the subject, not just four sentences about what they were doing before the attack. There simply isn't enough known about Bouhlel to warrant his own article at the moment (WP:TOOSOON) (WP:RECENTISM).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" ... but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size."--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... not only. Not if the event he is associated with is significant and his role in it was both substantial and well documented. See WP:BLP1E Erlbaeko (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A couple paragraphs is not "substantial" or "well-documented". Most of everything that is known about him is already in the main article.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - I suggest that we keep the article and see if it becomes any more substantial, and if not merge it with the main attack article. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 18:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: If the only thing he is famous for is the Nice attack, then just keep it in the Nice attack article. FabulousFerd (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge per WP:PERPETRATOR. 70.51.84.138 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Purge: Bastard killed my friend, I don't want to read about him. --Merzouky (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perpetrator is subject to have committed the worst mass killing in Europe which is noteworthy. APayan (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:TOOSOON and WP:PERPETRATOR. Once enough info is obtained about the perpetrator (e.g early life and other stuff), then it would be applicable to create an article about the killer. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. No need to have a separate article. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 19:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 'attack' page as per WP:PERPETRATOR, any estimation of how much biog info will materialise is pure guess work, WP:TOOSOON applies and as a purely practical matter we know it will make keeping the 'attack' and 'perp.' articles harder to patrol and keep aligned. Pincrete (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Extensive media coverage. 46.200.26.232 (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Unless something changes radically, there seems to be no content here that would not already merit inclusion in the attack article. So I cannot see the point of a separate article. Mathsci (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have 3 further concerns about the fork article. Firstly it uses immoderate language not allowed in the main article: as an example the subject is described in the lede without sources as a terrorist, while investigations are still in their infancy. Secondly standards for WP:RS have been relaxed to allow salacious details into the article, none of which appear even in summary form in the main article. Thirdly a large amount of content in the fork is still being created by copy-pasting new content from the main article without any attribution. the flow has not gone the other way so far. Mathsci (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The subject of this article is not notable outside of the Nice attack, and the Nice attack article has not reached the 50KB size to justify a WP:SIZESPLIT. Waters.Justin (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Nice attack article is currently 28 KB.[8] If we expect the article to grow twice the size then a size split may be justified. WP:SIZESPLIT Waters.Justin (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUPLICATE and WP:OVERLAP are both valid reasons for merge.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is there precisely to show that "other stuff exiting" is not a valid rationale for anything on Wikipedia, unless the other stuff exists because it is backed by policy (in which case, the rationale is the policy, and the stuff is just an example)? LjL (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I used OTHER STUFF EXISTS with full knowledge that it is listed as one of the WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The addition of the words "in high numbers" was also deliberate as a demonstration of the extensive biographical coverage of those who have no other notability than as perpetrators. In addition to the hundreds of entries under Category:Assassins by nationality or Category:Murderers by nationality, some of whom, such as Jan Kubiš, are considered heroic figures, there is also Category:Mass murderers and its sub-Category:Islamist mass murderers, although subject's categorization as an Islamist has not yet been determined. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In short, no. This deletion hasn't even been open for 24 hours. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty stupid having a big afd banner on a prominent article for seven days especially since there is mainly keep or a merge. Close the discussion and reopen the merge discussion on the talk page. 203.118.164.94 (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It gives time to improve the article though, if anything new comes to light it will be added. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing that an AfD can do to improve this article when nobody wanted to delete it in the first place. It seems more like this AfD was an accident, and instead was meant to be a discussion about merging (see the original user's comments at top about "deleting and redirecting").--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

  • Snow keep and continue the merge discussion on the talk page. 203.118.164.94 (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can't "snow" anything since there are conflicting opinions. Kylo Ren (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for now) Sure, the article currently may not contain much more information than in the article for the Nice attacks, but it's only been a short while since the attack. Perpetrators of major terrorist attacks will often gather more media coverage for a long time after the attack, so trying to judge somebody's potential future notability only a day after the attack seems far from productive. If given time and the article still doesn't have any information that warrants an independent article, it wouldn't be hard to just merge it back. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Did one notable thing, then immediately died. Summarize in article about the notable thing, do not merge everything. If precedence means anything (and it shouldn't), follow that set by Andreas Lubitz. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The closing decision at WP:Articles for deletion/Andreas Lubitz (3rd nomination) was to merge/redirect, not delete. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge there's plenty of WP:POLICY above. No need to reiterate, but right now there is not enough information to justify, or split attention between two articles, and most readers are going to land on the event article first. Inb4 Breitbart posts an article about how WP wants to delete the page on this guy because they misunderstood the banner at the top of the page. TimothyJosephWood 23:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect: WP:ONEEVENT, WP:PERPETRATOR. This terrorist is not independently notable; his noteworthiness is inextricably bound up in the atrocity he committed. Moreover, splitting content is unwise because it creates duplication and forces readers to go to two pages when really they could just as adequately go to just one. Neutralitytalk 00:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect: The incident is notable, not the person (basically what User:Neutrality points out regarding WP policies). I think delete votes should be counted as being in the same camp. If Keep, it shouldn't disqualify future re-evaluation since this is a recent event. --Makkachin (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect: Standard practice with articles about crimes and articles about their perpetrators. There's no indication this individual meets the standard for a standalone article. In the unlikely event that more information is uncovered unconnected with the attack in Nice, we can revisit this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious merge, WP:BLP1E WP:BIO1E and WP:PERP. ansh666 05:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (and Redirect) into the 2016 Nice attack article. Only notable for committing the attack. - Csurla (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think people will be looking for information about him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect with 2016 Nice attack as per WP:ONE EVENT: "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." Irrelevant person prior to the terrorist attack. Vs6507 11:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The attack is of sufficient magnitude that the perpetrator is clearly notable on his own, per clear prior precedent of other perpetrators like Amedy Coulibaly and Anders Behring Breivik. In fact, the case for this article is even stronger than for those aforementioned perpetrators, since this attacker was responsible for even more deaths. —Lowellian (reply) 13:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They're stronger because they were central to more than one big event. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No they weren't. Amedy Coulibaly and Anders Behring Breivik are both also known for one event, the January 2015 Île-de-France attacks and 2011 Norway attacks, respectively. —Lowellian (reply) 15:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coulibaly had the Porte de Vincennes siege. Breivik had the trial of Anders Behring Breivik. His manifesto was also widely covered and analysed, making him a notable author. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which are all related events that are part of or arising from the aforementioned core events. These are not independent events. And the fact that we have all these articles just further goes to show that, when an event is of sufficient magnitude, it is common Wikipedia practice to have multiple articles treating different aspects of an event, such as the subject of this AFD, the perpetrator of an event. —Lowellian (reply) 03:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What about the other terrorists then? Cexycy (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other terrorists? How about Adolf Hitler? Please IP read WP:NOTCENSORED. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I was getting at. Adolph Hitler has his own article, doesn't he? Doesn't mean he is a decent worthy person Cexycy (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even in that case, I think he should only have an article in Wikipedia if he is relevant enough. I don't think he is. For example, in the case of the Tsarnaev brothers, I would also tend to think it should be merged, but I understand the Tsarnaev brothers became relevant for reasons derived from the Boston Bombings and not only for the Boston Bombings. Same with Anders Breivik. I think 84.161.244.187 was trying to imply the perpetrator was nobody previous to the attack, and has not done anything relevant apart from that. Per WP:TOOSOON and other reasons mentioned in this discussion, I think this article shouldn't be deleted, but rather merged. Ron Oliver (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As upsetting as this person may have become, the article mainly relates to a tragic event which should never be forgotten. As time goes by, more information should become available to make the article of a better in depth standard. Cexycy (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's speculative, is it not? Since the man is dead, he will never face trial, and although some details of the investigation may shed some light on his pathetic life, these would almost certainly be able to be included in the attack article in a paragraph or two, or less, yes? Neutralitytalk 19:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More and more information can be obtained overtime and before you know it, you will have enough information to create a lengthy article. It would be interesting to find out more about what his aim was, considering he wasn't a strict Muslim, according to the information currently known. He may not stand trial but does that really matter? Police caught him in the act and shot him, so he didn't get away with it. Mark David Chapman only killed one person and he has led quite a simplistic life but he has an article. One of Wikipedia's qualities is consistency, so if you get rid of this article, you will have to get rid of articles for other terrorists or certain other killers, which would be pointless. Cexycy (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I actually think this is a "Snow Keep". There are plenty of terrorists who have articles. He is among the "worst", if you will (by simple body count alone). I don't see how he is not notable enough for an article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of opinions so far are against keeping, so, by definition, this is most definitely not a "snow keep", as that would mean that virtually everyone opined for keeping. They did not. LjL (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand that. I am saying that I myself think it's so obvious as to be a "snow keep". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The standard for that sort of thing is "Strong Keep". Not saying you have to use it, but it's less likely to confuse. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:PERPETRATOR. The attack is relevant. The murderer is not. Ron Oliver (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, for the same reasons as many other editors' state in postings above. Ref (chew)(do) 21:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable. Anders Behring Breivik has a page. --Franz Brod (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't this comparison rather inapposite? Breivik survived his crime and was put on trial; more than half of his biographical article covers his criminal trial, a civil trial, and his prison life. Breivik also left a detailed manifesto, and discussion of it takes up significant space in his article. Bouhlel, by contrast, is dead; there will be no trial to cover. And he left no manifesto or other writing, as Breivik did. Neutralitytalk 22:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as WP:PERPETRATOR does allow for WP:SPINOUT articles for reasons of space, and this article is pretty long and comprehensive to the point that it would be unduly inappropriate to just paste it all back into 2016 Nice attack. LjL (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This tragic event was one of the most important events to occur this year and a page that covers the perpetrator's information in-depth is definitely necessary. Hammill Ten (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – At the moment, both this article and the 2016 Nice attack article are relatively small. There's also a lot of overlap, so little would be lost. FallingGravity (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

  • Merge as per WP:PERPETRATOR PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep No reason to delete. Reaper7 (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The content in the Bouhlel's article can fit into a section of the 2016 Nice attack article. In response to rationales above, we are not deleting valuable information via a merge, the attacker has no significance outside of the event, and merging just changes the location. Also suggesting a merge based on comments above and WP:CRIM. Upjav (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think this relatively large article can easily be slapped into a section of 2016 Nice attack without deleting anything and yet without making that article unduly centered on the perpetrator? The WP:CRIM you mention does say that it is allowed to create a WP:SPINOUT article of a main article about a perpetrator if this is made necessary by reasons of size (like with most spinouts). Is this not the case here? LjL (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for now) – If the media keeps on giving this issue more coverage such as the Orlando shooting or the Paris attacks, then this article should be kept. If the perpetrator had other suspicions such as terrorist connections or previous threats in the vicinity then I think it should be kept to provide thorough information about his motives. De88 (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Some reports say that he was a suicide trying to pass off his death as a so-called Islamic attack. This kind of disguised suicide is not unusual in Western societies, but it does not have much of a media presence in Muslim cultures or with regard to Muslim people. If these reports prove to be true, it would also be relevant to discussions on terrorism elsewhere. Definitely keep for now until we know more. I would argue, keep period. Pufferfyshe (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - He is only known for the attack, absolutely everything about him that is notable is related to the event, and so should be found on the event page. Mattximus (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, it's probable that the media will produce significant coverage for the individual similarly to the individuals behind the 2016 Orlando shooting and the 2015 Paris attacks, as mentioned already by several above. If this is not the case (which I doubt but I'm not going to WP:CBALL here) then by all means a merger would be acceptable. Davidbuddy9Talk 02:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Not know outside the attack in Nice. Just combine the information. Reb1981 (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article is quite large.--Alcoaariel (talk) 05:25, 18 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 18. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 09:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge in to 2016 Nice attack, Nothing to say as all what I had to say's already been said. –Davey2010Talk 18:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It may be instructive to review the arguments submitted at last month's discussion/vote at Talk:Omar Mateen/Archive 1#Separate article not needed. The closing decision was No consensus to merge. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion should've closed by an admin but either way consensus here may be to Merge.... –Davey2010Talk 21:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Usually with articles like this it's more or less a paragraph on the "incident" and that's it and I assumed this was the case ... Turns out I was wrong & should've read the article first, Anyway the article looks to pass GNG so I don't see any valid reason for deletion and plus technically Merges should be discussed on the talkpage so Merging should be out of the question, Anyway keep. –Davey2010Talk 21:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is a reason the public is so interested in the terrorist, his migration into France in recent years, etc.: the guy is the deadliest single terrorist in France. He is the Osama Bin Laden of France. Of course he should get his own page, just like Mohamed Atta, the leader of the WTC terrorist group does. Have people forgotten 9/11? XavierItzm (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like false equivalence, as the names you list were influential leaders of major terror attacks, and this is a (mostly) independent attacker apparently influenced by jihadist propaganda. FallingGravity (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
84 dead and 303 injured, but some think this is not a major terror attack. Wow. Just wow. XavierItzm (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to say it's not a major terror attack; the difference I'm trying to bring up is that the perpetrator here is different from the people you list. FallingGravity (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:XavierItzm, the attack was major, it's just that when an attack is a coordinated, group effort, it can be functional to have separate articles about the leader, and sometimes about the other attackers. Here, there is no functional reason to separate out this bio.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge to the attack on Nice page as per WP:PERPETRATOR The only reason not to do so is length, not a problem at this point with either article. A merge has the great advantage of putting all of the information in a single space; this murderer is notable for nothing else; and separate articles on murderers can lend themselves to use by people inclined to glorify criminals of his ilk, merging keeps the crime he is known for in context.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is clear that the delete option is off the table... Whether this should be merged is outside of AfD's purview. A proper merge debate elsewhere after a little time has passed is what the doctor calls for. Carrite (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - substantial and useful article on a notable topic. Metamagician3000 (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Changing my iVote. Reason is: today's news makes clear that he had accomplices,which makes a separate article functional.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 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) Sam Sailor Talk! 08:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic News Service[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Catholic_News_Service (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)

Completely self-sourced. In spite of its exorbitant claims of world relevance, there is nothing here that doesn't point to this being yet another small group of cranks nagging at the media to comply to catholic ideas in their free time. Whatever link they seem to think they have to the U.S. conference of catholic bishops seems to be entirely one-sided. complainer (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict)On your userpage, you've posted a template called "Religion is harmful".  The textbox currently says, "This user is an Atheist and believes religion is harmful to society."  Does this also mean that you think that this topic is harmful to society?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)What were your results from WP:BEFORE B5?  I gave up after thousands, but I don't have a quick way to count the number of links.  Did you consider adding to your AFD nomination a mention of the effect on the encyclopedia in terms of the number of red links a deletion would create?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Described in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and the American News Media (2012) as "the principal Catholic source of national news" and credited with helping to "professionalize" the Catholic press.[9] The Catholic University of America archives page has some detailed historical information about the news agency under both its current name and its original one, the National Catholic Welfare Conference News Service.[10] Here's a story from NPR about the recent removal of its editor.[11] Other sources include [12][13][14][15][16] Numerous citations of CNS by other reliable sources (see for example the results of a HighBeam search [17]) indicate it also passes WP:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals #4.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Catholic News Service is a prominent Roman Catholic publication used to disseminate information related to the Church. Books published by academic presses, such as The Future of Religious Freedom: Global Challenges (published by Oxford University Press), list the newspaper among their citations. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arxiloxos. It looks like WP:BEFORE was not followed here. StAnselm (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The preferred thing to have done would have been to look at how often Catholic News Service has been cited as an RS in other Wikipedia articles... Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CNS is a widely used outlet, both witin and without the Church. It is responsible for disseminating news and events on an international scale, and is cited by both religious and secular sources. Also, many articles on the Wiki itself utilize CNS as a WP:RS. -Pax Verbum 14:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Frequently cited by all major secular news sources, including PBS, New York Times, etc. FWIW, I am an Episcopalian. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. It's obvious that the article must be improved, but no doubts about notability criteria. Millbug talk 20:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Even if it lacks independent sources, it is clearly notable. A lack of independent sources is a reason for tagging for improvement, not one for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For all the reasons given above. Safiel (talk) 04:01, 25 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. Michig (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early entrance at Shimer College[edit]

Early entrance at Shimer College (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)

Inappropriate article. Early entrance is notable, and so is Shimer college, but that does not mean the combination is. Nor is it really a separate topic at all, as apparently 80% of the students at the college are (or were) in this program. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but only if User:@Complainer: stops complaining under the guise of witty comments . In any case, I do appreciate for the first time being informed about the WP: Really, Who Could Possibly Ever Care policy page . But seriously, without independent reliable sources, this is not a notable topic and Wikipedia is not a guide book or manual. This probably has more of a home on High School websites than here. Also, this topic is very close to being WP:SYN (synthesis). Steve Quinn (talk) 18:26, 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; consensus, including comments made after relist, is to delete.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Bennett II[edit]

Louis Bennett II (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)

PROD removed by article creator with no reason given. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has never played in a fully-professional league). GiantSnowman 16:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:12, 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 03:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MBisanz: This is a bit of an interesting relist. The one keep !vote is a WP:CRYSTAL argument and the four delete !votes (5 if including nom) are based on accepted guidelines. I know I participated in this debate so this might seem biased but I'm just being truthful. I think there is consensus to delete and I am wondering why you choose to relist?- Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I relisted because the last comment differed from all of the prior comments and no one had responded saying why the last comment's view was incorrect. If his view had something useful, I did not want to prematurely cut off debate. MBisanz talk 11:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But you only had to read it to see it was pure speculation (i.e. he "will" play). Essentially it is just someone claiming that a player will be notable in the future. No one need respond to that because it is pure WP:CRYSTAL. Fenix down (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that this is obvious CRYSTAL in my eyes. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with Yellow Dingo that this is a very interesting relist. Every delete !vote was based in long-established guidelines, and the only keep !vote is pure WP:CRYSTAL. If an uninvolved admin reviews this, I would hope they can see that and close despite the relist. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 04:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 04:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree too, this is a bad relist, there is clear consensus that the individual does not meet any subject specific guideline, nor GNG. Fenix down (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I cant see any reason anymore for delete, the player made his debut with Anorthosis the previews week. ChrisAnorthosis (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I presume by debut you mean this match. Firstly, I cannot see his name mentioned in article, he certainly wasn't in the starting line up provided at the bottom as far as I can see. More importantly, Soccerway is quite clear that this was a friednly match. WP:FOOTYN requires players to have made appearances in fully professional leagues or cup competitions or other competitive matches involving two teams from fully professional leagues. This appearance does not satisfy the subject specific guideline and clearly is nowhere near enough to satisfy GNG. The earliest this player can be thought of as notable by any standard is the 19th August, if he plays, when Anorthosis play APOEL. Fenix down (talk) 13:28, 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.  Sandstein  16:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prahlad Basu[edit]

Prahlad Basu (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. does not fulfill wp:academic Uncletomwood (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as my examinations also found nothing convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe deckertalk 01:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, despite the significant cleanup required for this article. I found a source for his being a distinguished professor, previously included in the article but tagged as needing a citation. This gives him a pass of WP:PROF#C5. His work within the Indian government may also be significant enough for WP:POLITICIAN. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:51, 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 03:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keepdelete. Claims not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Delete - That one source for the article looks to be a primary source, a conference paper written by him (including, presumably, the bio). Given his age, it seems likely he's retired, but at this moment anyway he's nowhere to be found on the school's website. WP:PROF#C5 furthermore requires the distinguished position be at a "major institution of higher education and research". Does Fore School of Management qualify? Possibly? The bigger problem that changed this from just a "Comment" to Weak Delete is that we have here a BLP that does not include even one single solitary reliable source that wasn't written by him, so far as I can see, and thus nothing to base an article on. So my delete !vote should be viewed as without prejudice to recreation if such reliable independent sources turn up. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This doesn't satisfy GNG and I believe doesn't satisfy WP:PROF#C5. My first issue with C5 is Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level. I see absolutely no evidence that the subject is tenured or that the subject even taught at the institution for an extended amount of time. The website has absolutely no mentions and neither do any other sources. Looking at the subjects teaching positions, I see that he has held quite a few visiting profs/non-tenured positions in other institutes as well. The second issue is that I wonder if the school itself is a major institution. From what I have seen, it doesn't seem like. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this in 2004 he was part of some government board and it mentions absolutely nothing that he was a professor. This seems a bit dodgy to me. I cannot believe that the "distinguished professor" is a tenured position. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:17, 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. The comments from this and last month's AfD form a pretty much unanimous consensus that the subject isn't notable and the possibility of source misrepresentation. —SpacemanSpiff 04:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Himachali Cinema[edit]

Himachali Cinema (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 article purports to be about "Himollywood" -- the regional cinema of Himachal Pradesh -- but there is insufficient evidence that such a regional cinema industry yet exists. A film or two shot in the region does not argue for the existence of a new film industry. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Himollywood. This article might well qualify under WP:CSD#G4 but I don't have access to the deleted Himollywood article to know, but given the recentness of the prior deletion, it's unlikely that any new notability information has since come forth.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:30, 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 05:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no term as Himollywood coined in Himachal until now. Yes there are a few regional films being made but the article calls it an idustry for 'Kangri' films, whereas there are more than 30 local languages and dialects spoken in Himachal Pradesh state and 'Pahari' much like Kashmiri/Ladakhi is the language most spoken not Kangri. The article presents Incorrect Facts and Wrong Information about the Local Film Industry in Himachal and has no valid references to support its stance either. The page is definitely self promotional in its motives with only 2 production houses originally listed by the author, whereas there are many others in Himachal Pradesh, much better than the ones listed on the page, take Secret Corridor Pictures for example, which have made worthwhile films which have been screened at several film festivals and won awards too. The approach to writing is NOT Neutral and is not serving the purpose of enhancing the pool of knowledge of Himachal Cinema Culture or correctly updating on latest trends either. - Tenzin24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenzin24 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 03:36, 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 no consensus. Participants in this discussion do not oppose a merger, though there is no consensus to explicitly support merging, so anyone interested may start a merge discussion. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 01:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Culture Clash (band)[edit]

Culture Clash (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)

Very short music article created in 2007, no real substantial coverage, all searches come up with topics related to Red Bull and not this band. Only sources are agent's page and MySpace. KaisaL (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: not sure about this one... the Bhundu Boys are certainly notable, and any Brits listening to late-night radio during the 1980s will know the group were huge favourites of BBC Radio 1 DJs Andy Kershaw and John Peel and got plenty of airplay. But I can't say this follow-up band are anywhere near as noteworthy... possibly a merge to Bhundu Boys and a sentence in that article to say the two band members formed Culture Clash after the original group broke up may be the best option. Richard3120 (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A merge seems like a good option, I would think. KaisaL (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A collaboration between a notable solo musician and the singer/guitarist of the clearly notable Bhundu Boys. It should be obvious that this should be included somewhere, so at worst it should merge to one of the members. Coverage exists: [18], [19]. --Michig (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that this supports that they don't justify an article on their own - per WP:NMUSIC bands aren't inherently notable because they contain members of other noteworthy bands. I'm all for improving access to information on bands, but the coverage you've linked to is primarily about Bhundu Boys, not Culture Clash. I think a merge is the best option here, especially if the the extent of this band's coverage is mentions in coverage of their members. KaisaL (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In which case you are free to withdraw the nomination and propose a merge on the article's talk page. --Michig (talk) 16:57, 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 05:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Not a notable group. No indication of any releases or third-party sources. Karst (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 03:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -According to WP:BAND, an ensemble is considered notable if it contains two or more independently notable musicians. This band seems to be made up of a couple members from Bhundu Boys. Burroughs'10 (talk) 19:30, 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 no consensus. North America1000 00:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Provocateur (band)[edit]

Agent Provocateur (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)

I'm unsure that this band meet our criteria at WP:NMUSIC. The only single with a chart listing missed the Top 40, so that wouldn't count, and their album doesn't appear to have done much either. Unusually, all of their members have articles (one or two, like John Gosling (Psychic TV musician) and Danny Saber, could be borderline notability themselves) but I'm not sure that the band itself qualifies. Certainly we need more sources. As nominator I'm happy to be swung to a keep if it can be demonstrated which criteria they meet. KaisaL (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree, the band members are mostly more notable themselves than this "supergroup" – Gosling has had a couple of UK chart hits under his alias Mekon (bizarrely, neither of them are mentioned in his article), and Saber was a key member of a band who had a UK no. 1 album (It's Great When You're Straight... Yeah)... I know that this in itself doesn't make him worthy of an article, but his extensive work with other musicians should produce enough material for a decent article for him. But I don't think Agent Provocateur will have enough articles, even in 1990s print magazines, to be able to construct a good article about the band itself. Richard3120 (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As well as the several notable members, they had a hit single, had one of their tracks included in the soundtrack of a Steven Soderbergh film, and received enough coverage to have a well-enough sourced article: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. I see no reason to delete. --Michig (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Michig: Just to pick up on one point here, what is the hit single you speak of? In the UK a hit single would be in the top 40 and the only one on the article reached number 49, which excludes it from being used to meet that criteria of the guidelines. Quite a number of the links you've provided focus on Matthew Ashman (e.g. his obituary) and happen to mention the band; I don't think his notability is under dispute but there's certainly a case that this particularly band, in themselves, were not. I don't feel particularly strongly on the issue so I don't really intend to debate it too thoroughly, but an observation. KaisaL (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no one definition of 'hit single'. Radio and TV focused on the top 40, while the chart that was published and sent to record shops was all about the top 75. Either way, a placing at no. 49 is a significant achievement. --Michig (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The chart technically goes down to 200, but I've never considered beyond 40 to count in the United Kingdom. I really don't think "hit" can be attached to something that in the 1990s was confined to an industry list, certainly bands were always spoken of as having their first hit when they hit the top 40. I acknowledge it's close enough to show some leeway. KaisaL (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. As per chart entry. Much of the material around this band appears to do with Ashman's death, the article should expand on that. Karst (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 03:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I've been watching and waiting to comment especially now that no one else has; frankly, the article is still overall thin in that there's still not a lot actually convincing. With this, and nothing else being close to substantially better, delete is best. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 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--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TV Satyanarayana[edit]

TV Satyanarayana (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 is a promotional article about a non-notable or barelyntoable academic. WP:PROF is a worldwide standard, andhe does not meet it as an expert. The article is promotional by its emphasis on minor awards and the like --what does being a Life Member of a RedCross Society have to do with notability as an engineer? As is usually the case, this sort of emphasis is found where there simply isn't anything major enough for a convincing article. I declined a speedy on this, because it does at least claim significance. But it certainly doesn't prove it. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Here, for brevities sake, let me help. Fails WP:PROMO & WP:SELFPUB. Does not establish notability reliably Nikto wha? 03:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I concur this is still advertorial and so questionable, there's still nothing actually convincing regarding notability, nothing suggesting minimally better. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 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 redirect to Miss Earth 2001. Consensus here does not explicitly oppose a redirect. Anyone who thinks Miss Earth United States would be more suitable as a redirect target is free to start a WP:RFD discussion. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 02:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Royce[edit]

Abigail Royce (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 real indication of notability; none of the sources provide significant coverage of this individual. —swpbT 12:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 12:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing for inherent notability of all national winners of this minor pageant? Whether they have significant coverage in RS or not? I'll go out on a limb and call that a minority position. I'd be ok with a redirect (I still think deletion is more appropriate), but a keep is unsupportable without meeting GNG. —swpbT 12:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's an open question. I think we need to create NPAGEANT so that there is a guideline as to which pageants are the major ones and which ones are not. For now, remember that redirects are better than redlinks, which are usually an open invitation to recreate the article. A bluelink redirect preserves edit history and makes it simple to expand when it is more suitable. A redlink just invites another poor-quality article. I believe that WP:BEFORE also encourages this. Montanabw(talk) 20:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to work on NPAGEANT, by all means. There's no reason this AfD needs to wait for it to be done. And FWIW, WP:BEFORE really doesn't "encourage" a redirect here. It says: "consider [emphasis mine] merging or redirecting...particularly if the topic name is a likely search term" (which this isn't). Putting forward arguments for redirecting is fine, and your other arguments are even somewhat persuasive, but please avoid suggesting policy support where it doesn't exist. —swpbT 18:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 02:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Incorporate into pageant articles at most. Engleham (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She and her title are already noted in this article: Miss Earth 2001. There is no need for this article WP:UNDUE. No significant coverage of Royce in any sources. Then the winner of "Miss Earth 2001" is noted in this article: Miss Earth. This is an encyclopedia not a fan site. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:21, 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. czar 04:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Lives (miniseries)[edit]

Nine Lives (miniseries) (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 never aired. Nearly all hits on Google search quote this page. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 22:10, 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 02:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't find any sources saying it ever aired, and it's been 7 years. Mattximus (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above, there's no evidence this actually aired; in layman's terminology, "this is not a thing." Now I want to write WP:NOTATHING. GABgab 15:11, 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 16:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Sweden, Mexico City[edit]

Embassy of Sweden, Mexico City (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:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable . This article is merely a list of ambassadors. Also oppose merge as ambassador listings are not included in bilaterals or foreign relations Articles. LibStar (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Embassies and lists of Ambassadors. Embassies are notable buildings in the cities they inhabit. This is not a particuarly good page but a list of Swedish Ambassadors to Mexico should be retained. MLA (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
no, embassies are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 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 02:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
a list of ambassadors is not a free pass to notability. LibStar (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Embassy and Ambassador list. MLA is right, the article needs to be improved, but embassies are major landmarks in their cities, as well as major symbols of diplomacy and bilateral relations. Scanlan (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
they may be "major " but they do not have inherent notability. So far none of the keep voters have presented any sources . LibStar (talk) 08:56, 19 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 04:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Octave Studio Kolkata[edit]

Octave Studio Kolkata (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 The Banner talk 22:53, 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 01:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The given references are the company's own Facebook, Twitter and Wix pages, plus a newspaper article which does not mention them. No evidence of notability there or found in searches. AllyD (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject lacks any coverage in reliable sources and does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 03:38, 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. Tone 16:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seaport Capital[edit]

Seaport Capital (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 RS, not notable. Baum des Lichtes (talk) 06:09, 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 10:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 01:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:NOTADVERT. Ajf773 (talk) 07:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The given references are a listing and a routine announcement. My searches also show several other transaction announcements, but not substantial coverage. Transactional information confirms a firm going about its business, but is insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 13:46, 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. czar 04:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Loomis[edit]

Joseph Loomis (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 establishing notability Baum des Lichtes (talk) 06:13, 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 10:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 01:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A WP:SPA biography, sourced to the subject's own site and as one participant appearing in a CNN feature. He is also briefly quoted in a CNBC piece. Simply appearing in some media topic discussions is insufficient to demonstrate biographical notability, and my searches are finding nothing better. AllyD (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No apparent claim to notability. Engleham (talk) 18:55, 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) Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Action Without Borders[edit]

Action Without Borders (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)

Extremely advertorial, not sign of notability. Baum des Lichtes (talk) 06:15, 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 10:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 01:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd say "Speedy" but this terrible nomination has been held over twice. Non-profit NGO established in 1995, meets GNG from the first two footnotes showing, beginning with a long interview with the founder from Forbes. Yikes. AfD is not a cleanup tool. Passes GNG, we're done. Carrite (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources seem to indicate this organization is notable according to our standards; also achieves WP:CORPDEPTH at the least. The article needs to be cleaned up or rewritten. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:45, 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. czar 04:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meera Joshi[edit]

Meera Joshi (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 issue has no independent reliable sources,only passing mentions,feel she is not eligible for a stand-alone article as per WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Thank you FITINDIA (talk) 09:06, 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]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:53, 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 01:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see no evidence of notability. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not only was this simply reviewed by a now-uncovered and kicked user, this still has no actual convincing signs of her own notability and my examinations have found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 01:05, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 00:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of people with dual American and German 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 14:15, 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 per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:SALAT. The complete list would be far too large to be useful. The American diaspora article states that there are over 100,000 Americans living in Germany; I know that not all those people hold dual citizenship, but it should give people a sense of how expansive this list could be. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many have articles? Because that's the only number that's relevant to lists of this kind. postdlf (talk) 23:22, 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 10:02, 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 Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:13, 11 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 redirect to 2014 in Philippine television. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 15:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine television specials aired in 2014[edit]

List of Philippine television specials aired in 2014 (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)

Indiscriminate lists are not notable articles on Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia is not a old copy of TV guide - which aptly describes this article. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:17, 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 09:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist to determine redirect or delete. — Music1201 talk 01:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 01:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is better yet to Redirect this to 2014 in Philippine television, also as per above. - Pinespunned (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect. Almost anything can be called a special (even a regular series), and we don't have this list for any other country, so I'm not willing to create any kind of precedent to at least allow a RD. The entire list is absurd, calling the lowest-rated series on low-rated networks "special events", SOP cable network marathons of regular series are listed here, listing nearly every single sporting event aired on Filipino TV in 2014, and cataloging a literal WP:WHOCARES special called "#GiveLoveGiveBackPhilippines: Justin Bieber's Visit to the Philippines Special" that we wouldn't even highlight in a Bieber article, much less a network article. And 29 sources out of at least 700-1000 entries? WP:SOURCE isn't even close to being met. Nate • (chatter) 02:50, 19 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.  Sandstein  16:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Health Insurance Plan of New Jersey[edit]

Health Insurance Plan of New Jersey (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)

PROD removed by page's creator. No significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What do you call the articles on the company in the New York Times? Does HIP own the New York Times, making them dependent? Is the New York Times unreliable? Are an 823 word article and a 1193 word article insignificant? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the page's current references, can you find additional reliable sources? Two articles in the New York Times does not qualify a subject as notable and is not "significant coverage". Meatsgains (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does! Don't you think you should be doing the research before you nominate for deletion? Read WP:Before. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:45, 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 04:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:11, 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 09:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — Music1201 talk 01:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 01:50, 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 no consensus. After three relists and a lack of discussion, a consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 15:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert K. Futterman[edit]

Robert K. Futterman (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 still is too focused between both his business achievements, which will not automatically make him notable regardless of who and where these events happened, and then also his controversies, non of which are convincing either. My own searches have also found only mere mentions of him at News, browsers and also NYC newspapers (for example, a search at NYTimes only found one of the exact same mere mentions from earlier), including of which was another controversy Also, ironically, the article is also then too advertorial regarding about these business ventures and achievements. From there, I examined and also found nothing else convincingly better. At best, it also seems the benefits of having all this removed outweighs any minimally acceptable materials. Noting the history, I also happened to notice that basically the only major changes here were in February-to-March 2012 here when a new user apparently had made the now-current changes, but basically this article has been entirely troubled regarding information, sources and notability since starting in November 2010. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 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 04:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:04, 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 09:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — Music1201 talk 01:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 01:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Credible claim of notability regarding his real estate endeavors, backed up by appropriate reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim. Alansohn (talk) 20:44, 19 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 and a lack of discussion, a consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 15:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avalance Global solutions[edit]

Avalance Global solutions (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:BOMBARDment aside, no indication this meets WP:CORP.

This appears to be part of a larger spamming/PR effort. The article was previously deleted at Avalance, where this should be moved, if it survives. There's also a draft at Draft:Avalance

The company's founder also has an article which has been repeatedly recreated/deleted. See Manan Shah (Ethical Hacker) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manan Shah (Ethical Hacker) Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krishtailor (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC) all articles are genuine and which content like you an advertisement please tell me...and how can i remove this notice.[reply]

  • Delete I went through the 37 references and removed the ones that were primary sources, trivial directory listings, unreliable. Most of the remaining 14 are in Gujarati so I cannot read them but I doubt they are any better than the ones I removed. I doubt there is a single reliable independent source. Fails WP:CORP. Delete this and any other variants that may appear. Except for the author, this deletion should be completely uncontroversial. MB (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I started a sock-puppet investigation which includes both articles' creators: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nxtgenwiki. Grayfell (talk) 02:54, 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 05:03, 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — Music1201 talk 01:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 01:48, 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.  Sandstein  11:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bug Bite (Transformers)[edit]

Bug Bite (Transformers) (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)

Minor characters from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Contested prod; it was suggested that a merge was possible, but no target was suggested. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment In my capacity as an administrator that sometimes closes AFDs, I have come across a lot of these lately in my work, and they all seem to go to a merge, redirect or delete. Might it be worth exploring the idea of a collective solution, instead of bringing them to individual discussions to AFD? KaisaL (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not convinced this is possible; one-by-one deletion and merges (and not all of this is happening through AfD) is proving to be the most effective approach. There have been clear and clearly-expressed concerns about Transformers articles for years (take a search through the ANI archives; here's a thread from way back in 2010 in which people express frustration about how the problems with Transformers content had persisted for many years across literally hundreds of articles despite various attempts at seeing them cleaned up - things haven't improved). This may not be the quickest way at dealing with the problem, but it is working. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, happy to yield to your better judgement - just thought it was worth a mention. KaisaL (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Gobots characters#Bug Bite, and let's stop messing with these until we can find an editor who wants to do the leg work to merge them appropriately, so as to keep from clogging up AfD. The merge, redirect, or delete roulette does nothing to provide consistency in coverage of not-individually-notable fictional elements and WP:WAX or WP:OSE are not designed to prohibit appropriately cleaning up multiple similar articles with mass mergers. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jclemens; I have sympathy with what you are saying here, but please see my comment above. Transformers content on Wikipedia has been an utter mess (lots of other terms could be used) for years, and, despite people expressing worries and hopes for improvement (and many discussions) over and over and over in this time, improvement and cleaning has not been forthcoming; content has continued to be (re)created following the same rules. A concrete solution is one thing, but "let's stop messing with these until we can find an editor who wants to do" something has been shown to be ineffective. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • AfD is not for cleanup. WP:NODEADLINE. WP:DEMOLISH. If the mess upsets you, please take the initiative to either look elsewhere or clean it up in a constructive way. ~Kvng (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please don't patronise me; I know that this process is not for cleanup, but some things need to be deleted, and telling me to "take the initiative" and suggesting that I am not being "constructive" is, funnily enough, neither taking the initiative nor being constructive. To repeat the sentiment from above: if you have a concrete solution, I'm all ears. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the problem is that there's no primary target - the article title claims this is a Transformers character, but the content is all about Gobots, which is further confused by the BotCon stuff, which as I recall, deals with both, and further complicated by the toys being Transformers repaints. Without any indication of this article topic being any more than a minor background character, I don't see encyclopedic value so much as I do WP:FANCRUFT. There are plenty of other wikis for that. MSJapan (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. List of Gobots characters#Bug Bite seems like it might be a good target for a redirect or selective merge, but there's List of Decepticons#Miscellaneous, which also has Bug Bite listed. So I'm kind of confused as to which article we're supposed to redirect/merge to, like MSJapan said. I guess I don't mind deletion, but it seems like we've got a legitimate target here if we can make up our minds. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • My rationale for suggesting the Gobot merge target is that from a brief read of what we have here, this was a GoBot who switched dimensions (and franchises) and pretended to be a Decepticon in order to get vengence for cross-dimension/franchise issues. I could well be wrong, but that's what I was reading. Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is a cleanup issue best handled by editors of Transformers-related articles. Although our policy is not to use AfD for cleanup it is often used in this way. I have left a notices on some related WikiProjects. Perhaps some better ideas will arrive. ~Kvng (talk) 15:18, 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 09:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 01:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Poorly sourced article about a minor character, with no indication of a plausible merge target. Reyk YO! 10:42, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GGZ Gaming Zone[edit]

GGZ Gaming Zone (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 custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 09:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 09:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nomination statement pretty much says it all. One would expect an online games website to have coverage online, so the lack of available sources certainly seems to indicate non-notability. Google results are mostly just forum posts, social media, mailing lists, etc. There was an announcement at Linux.com, but I've never really been comfortable with sourcing stuff from there, as it solicits freelance articles from readers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 01:42, 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. J04n(talk page) 15:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HKOSCon[edit]

HKOSCon (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)

Taking to AfD as I still confirm my May 17 PROD but that was removed, until Fram RePRODed it. My searches frankly have simply found nothing actually convincing and there's nothing minimally noticeable for general notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I shouldn't have reprodded it, for some reason I didn't notice the previous prod. Having said that, I see no evidence at all (from reliable, independent sources) that this has the required notability. Despite claims at th original deprod that secondary and third-party sources were added, all we have is an external link from a speaker at one of the conferences, and the homepage of the conference. Fram (talk) 07:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - software conference of unclear notability, lacking significant WP:RS coverage. Refs provided are a blog and pages from conference organisers. A search turned up incidental mentions in event listings, including one from Time Out Hong Kong but no substantial coverage.Dialectric (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction. Reference listed is not from organizer, but from oversea speakers of the event. --Koala Yeung (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to ask. But what does "Substantial coverage" mean here? There are coverage in Chinese media. There are also blog post about the event. There are numerous conferences entries in the [Category:Free-software_conferences | Free-software conferences] category with similar coverages. How many (if applicable) coverage do you think is substantial for enlisting in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yookoala (talk • contribs) 03:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Substantial coverage, based on Wikipedia:Notability, would be an entire article in a WP:RS magazine, web site, or journal, or multiple paragraphs in a book about the subject. Blogs are not typically considered when looking for refs which contribute to notability, nor are otherwise RS sources by people connected directly with the subject. Chinese media is fine for use as long as the media source is reliable.Dialectric (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Added Chinese media coverage to references. --Koala Yeung (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Content supported by independent media and organization, the event itself raised significant awareness in Hong Kong IT field especially open source community. Pwmvx1289 (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Pwmvx1289 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - It is a open source tech event in real life, I don't see any reason to remove such kinds of articles. Wikipedia is also built from open source. sammyfunghk —Preceding undated comment added 13:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Sammyfunghk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - Not only is the now added media not enough, the Keep votes are still not convincing enough to keep this considering the still noticeable questionability. SwisterTwister talk 20:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe deckertalk 01:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Frankly, I don't quite understand the "not enough" part of notability. Really. Please take a look at the Free-software_conferences category. 3rd party media coverage of IT conference like GNOME Users And Developers European Conference, FOSDEM, Free Software and Open Source Symposium are not that different from HKOSCon. I don't see why HKOSCon is especially problematic in this area. Some topics are much more notable to specific group of people (e.g. IT profession) and of less interested of mass media. Lack of mass media coverage doesn't mean it is not noticeable or notable. We explicitly listed blog post of some IT professions and groups (e.g. Mozilla) who are notable in the area. IMO, if the event is notable to them, it is worth listing in Wikipedia. If you're serious about mass media, please consider to remove all IT / medical / science conferences from Wikipedia. --Koala Yeung (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - HKOSCon has been reported in the Linuxpilot magazine, a renowned Linux magazine in Hong Kong, China and Taiwan, please see here, here and here. I believe the report for 2016 will be published soon as the 2016 conference just ended on 26 June. It is also listed in the Hong Kong government event website. Linux and Open Source (and to a larger extent, the IT development/education) is never in the mainstream in Kong Kong, many people who work in IT still have misconception about Open Source, and as a result how you measure notability may not be suitable to Open Source events in this area, mainstream still thinks it is free stuffs and for fun, but not for enterprise and mission critical operation. Please check the notable speakers cited in the page, they are all renowned people in the Open Source world (you can google them and find out, they are "celebrities" to me), if these people are all willing to speak at the event, doesn't it tell that the event has some influence, even it may just be to Hong Kong? It is the only, and the biggest open source conference in Hong Kong in these years after all. --Anthonywong (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Anthonywong (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unwired and Linux Pilot are both reliable sources for open software in Hong Kong, thus WP:GNG was clearly passed just with the sources already cited in the article. Deryck C. 13:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think one more relist and further discussion would benefit. — Music1201 talk 01:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 01:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Haven't done my own search for sources yet, but it seems worth noting that only one keep !vote is from someone who isn't an SPA (or practically an SPA, with a handful of other edits). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - The sources cited are almost entirely connected to the event itself or basic event listings (like Linux Pilot), not coverage of the event. The exception is Unwire.pro. I'd want to see more than just that to keep based on WP:GNG, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Searches for both its English and Chinese name does not return sufficient coverage. SSTflyer 02:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not enough outside coverage to constitute being notable. If there were more sources not directly connected to the event itself then perhaps the page can be re-created one day.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:18, 30 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RadioActive Rock[edit]

RadioActive Rock (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)

As listed by the applicable radio stations notability, articles may be acceptable if there's enough actual coverage but my searches have found nothing and that's not surprising for a 1-year-old online local radio station; overall there's still nothing actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:05, 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 01:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An internet radio station can get a Wikipedia article if it can be sourced over WP:GNG, but is not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NMEDIA just for existing — and this is sourced nowhere but its own self-published content about itself. Bearcat (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -a hard company name to search for, but from what I'm finding, there's no national coverage, not even local sources, no second or third party references to cite or meet notability. Burroughs'10 (talk) 20:51, 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 merge to Water damage#Restoration. czar 05:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Water damage restoration[edit]

Water damage restoration (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's topic is probably notable, but its entire current content is focussed on promoting 1 specific organization's (IICRC) views, standards and general expertise. It is essentially one huge WP:COATRACK, implying that "water damage restoration" and "IICRC S500" are identical topics. Aside from WP:COATRACK the article lacks independent sources, and violates WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NPOV in most sections. This seems like a textbook example for WP:TNT. GermanJoe (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is not a coatrack because the IICRC material is quite relevant to the topic. If there's more to be said, then this is a matter of expansion and improvement per our editing policy. WP:TNT is not policy; it's disruption. Andrew D. (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure This article seems to be mostly copied from the IICRC site. However the topic is certainly notable and important. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • On top of these problems (thanks for catching the possible copyvios), "Classifications" and "Categorization" are largely redundant with water damage - with slightly better and more diverse sourcing in the other article. Assuming IICRC S500 is a de-facto standard (should have a reliable source though for verification), we could simply mention the standard in a brief paragraph in the main article and redirect this one. GermanJoe (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge S500 standard to the restoration section of the water damage article for reasons as explained by GermanJoe. DeVerm (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-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,  Sandstein  06:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Water damage. A lot of this material (classifications) is repeated at the target and there is a Restoration section that can be improved by the material in this article. ~Kvng (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Definitely consensus to keep, but whether to keep independently or to merge has not yet been decided. — Music1201 talk 01:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 01:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to content in section per above. Proposed target is short enough to have this additional content. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:17, 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 redirect to Tinder (app)#History. czar 05:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Mateen[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Justin Mateen (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)

Previous deletion reasons have not been dealt with. Not enough WP:RS here to merit an article. Baum des Lichtes (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:43, 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 06:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 01:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tinder (app), as previously suggested. The sources given in the article either are about another primary subject and only mention Mateen passingly, are user profiles, or are not reliable sources at all. Fails WP:GNG, but as it indeed is a plausible search term, a redirect would make sense. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 04:18, 19 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 and a lack of discussion, a consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 15:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slumerican[edit]

Slumerican (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)

Various errors, and only his webpage as a source. Lukasz - Discussion 06:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I published the page prematurely when creating it. I have included new sources and citing new ones as well. Jdogg Shaw
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve. A quick Google search turns up Forbes and other reliable coverage. I know nothing about hip hop music, but the label seems notable. White Arabian Filly Neigh 00:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:13, 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think one more relist would benefit, if further discussion occurs. — Music1201 talk 01:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 01:37, 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. Tone 16:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Tapes[edit]

The Black Tapes (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 webcast lacking non-trivial support. Should have been CSD. reddogsix (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 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 05:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 01:34, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 00:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PromotionCode.org[edit]

PromotionCode.org (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)

Subject of article is a website that does not meet notability guidelines at WP:CORP Exemplo347 (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-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 05:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 01:33, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 02:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerua Baba[edit]

Gerua Baba (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)

Also nominating:

Gerua Baba Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Uanfala (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find anything on this other than Wikipedia mirrors. The prod was removed with a "please read references" edit summary but there is nothing on the web that corresponds to those two references either. regentspark (comment) 11:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regentspark, the article seems to almost completely overlap with Gerua Baba Temple, which was created by the same editor(s). Do you think the temple is notable? Uanfala (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not even sure if it exists. I googled "Gerua Baba Temple" and all I can see are wikipedia mirrors. --regentspark (comment) 22:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I've also just bundled Gerua Baba Temple into this Afd as the same reasoning applies to it. Uanfala (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The "references" consist of bare titles that don't seem to have left any trace on either worldcat or google. A google search for the Hindi name returns 21 results, only three of which aren't wikipedia mirrors. Only one of these three seems to be likely to be about the topic of this article. Nowhere near enough for even keeping this as a redirect to Hanuman. Uanfala (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment – Note that Gerua Baba Temple has also been nominated for deletion in this discussion. North America1000 05:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 01:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:46, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 23:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Chan (disambiguation)[edit]

Dominic Chan (disambiguation) (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 disambiguation page is unnecessary because there is just one article about a person called "Dominic Chan". The other 2 articles (Dominic Chan (politician), which is linked on the dab page; and Dominic Chan (photographer), which is unlinked on the dab page) do not exist. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We don't just list people with full articles on a dab, we help readers find information on people/topics that are contained in our articles. This has 3 valid entries - see MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION, GeoffreyT2000, and please consider withdrawing nomination. Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 01:29, 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. Jujutacular (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smash David[edit]

Smash David (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've attempted to clean up this article, however, it fails WP:BIO, with little depth of coverage in reliable sources. Most sources cited are one line mentions. Also, several of the sources which had been added to the article, and which I removed in the clean up, were just padding; with no mention of Smash David in the cited articles. The large table entitled "Production discography" is lacking in reliable sources. Completely fails WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 19:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 19:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 19:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Needs sources (noting that trivial ones were removed by Magnolia677). What's left is the failed assertion that the subject is notable by association. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as seems to pass criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC of having his works chart, there are sources for his works but not for personal info so that would need to be removed until it can be referenced.Atlantic306 (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which work charted? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreeing with Atlantic306. Sources (copy and paste, links have unusual characters in them, so they don't appear right):

http://www.billboard.com/biz/search/charts?f[0]=ts_chart_artistname%3AKhalid&f[1]=ss_bb_type%3Achart_item&type=2&artist=Khalid

http://www.billboard.com/biz/search/charts?f[0]=ts_chart_artistname%3AKid%20Ink&f[1]=ss_chart_search_title%3A%2ANasty%2A&f[2]=ss_bb_type%3Achart_item&type=1&artist=Kid%20Ink&title=Nasty

http://www.billboard.com/biz/search/charts?f[0]=ts_chart_artistname%3AZoey%20Dollaz&f[1]=ss_bb_type%3Achart_item&type=2&artist=Zoey%20Dollaz

http://www.billboard.com/biz/search/charts?f[0]=ts_chart_artistname%3ADeJ%20Loaf&f[1]=ss_chart_search_title%3A%2A%23AndSeeThatsTheThing%2A&f[2]=ss_bb_type%3Achart_item&type=1&artist=DeJ%20Loaf&title=%23AndSeeThatsTheThing

Thank you. Xboxmanwar (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the links mention David Smash. A search for David smash on Billboard brings back nothing. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Magnolia677 - First of all, his name is Smash David, not David Smash, and second of all, have some common sense, I was listing the sources of the singles he composed/written/record produced, in response to Atlantic306, since he didn't list the sources, if you want to see his credits for all those listed singles above, well here you go:
There's all the proof you need, also, on the the Been On My Grind link I have provided above, you will see his real full name, since you need it for proof on his name. Thank you. Xboxmanwar (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 01:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ..... Please don't "smash" me , Anyway no evidence of notability, Fails NMUSIC & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 18:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Davey2010 Can you explain how this article fails those two guidelines please? Also NMUSIC isn't even a guideline. Thanks. Xboxmanwar (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note to Xboxmanwar. No one is challenging that Smash David has credits on a number of tracks and/or artists that meet notability requirements. You have adequately provided links that confirm that. The point you are apparently missing is the wording in WP guidelines: "May be notable if..." The key word is "may..." This means that to simply meet the criteria is a start, but not an automatic qualifier. The weakness in this article is the absence of independent, third party evidence that explains why Smash David's credits contribute to the notability of these recordings and/or artists. If such references exists, please provide it. I voted Delete earlier but would change it if you provided proof from reliable, non-trivial sources. In absence of that all that is left is your assertion that Smash David deserves a wikipedia article based on two flaws: because he exists (see WP:EDPN) and because he is associated with wiki notability (see WP:INHERITED.) ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG by a mile and doesn't pass NMUSIC as well. Sorry, but I need proof that the artist is actually notable for the work - and no soundcloud links don't count, neither does a youtube video which makes no mention of the subject and another youtube video which is "not available" and uploaded by a random user. The links above seriously do not convince me. The NMUSIC doesn't mention anything about producers and in this case we hardly have any information about him. I might have considered if some of the works were really prominent, but that is not the case here either. A clear delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as quite clear there's both no substantial coverage and the only claims there are....is other people's name. Nothing amounting to his own convincing notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The above discussion has demonstrated that there is no evidence that this artist has had music on a national chart, and I cannot find any evidence that he meets other criteria of NMUSIC, or GNG. Vanamonde (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

delete - author's request. PhilKnight (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Azarvan[edit]

Amir Azarvan (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)

Previously listed for speedy deletion but article author removed speedy deletion tag. Fails GNG. Article sourced to social media and subject's own website. Search finds no RS references. LavaBaron (talk) 01:02, 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. North America1000 00:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vladan Mijatovic[edit]

Vladan Mijatovic (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)

Alleged to be A7.G11 eligible, author has updated the article and removed the csd tag. Still has no credible claim of significance or notability. Listing here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: His self-released album has brief bylined reviews on All About Jazz and Jazz Weekly, so this article is probably worthy of a full AfD rather than CSD. The AAJ review mentions the subject winning an International Jazz Piano Competition (not mentioned in the article, which consists largely of promotional text); if the competition can be verified, that could contribute to notability, but I have not located any independent evidence of such awards? AllyD (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: His Ornaments album is reviewed in The New York City Jazz Record of January 2016 (p16). EddieHugh (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: G11, yes it was, A7? Having played Carnegie, even if only the Weill Recital Hall, is a CCS. I did a site:.de search hoping to find something significant to reference, but have had little luck so far. Is it just a year or two WP:TOOSOON? Sam Sailor Talk! 11:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No actual comments on what we should do with this article yet (except the nom) Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Revisiting this and searching for sources again, I don't see a pass per WP:MUSBIO or per WP:GNG/WP:BASIC yet. I'm willing to change my mind if someone can do a better job with referencing. Sam Sailor Talk! 07:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I have also found nothing convincing for his own confirmed independent notability as an article. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Sources available do not amount to significant coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - despite a chance to save this, there has been no edits for ten days. I'm not convinced by the poor sourcing. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 27 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. Michig (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Premiere Motivational Speakers[edit]

Premiere Motivational Speakers (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 GNG & WP:CORPDEPTH. It's pretty much a low-key advert. --Tagishsimon (talk) Tagishsimon (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 23:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 23:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably qualifies for speedy A7. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advert is right. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agency has some high-profile speakers but coverage of the agency itself is so thin as to be virtually nonexistent. Policy says that the agency does not inherit the notability of its clients. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:17, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_July_18&oldid=1142622374"