Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 July	20 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. The "delete" arguments don't strike me as so compelling as to mandate deletion; they say the article is bad, but rarely go into any detail as to how and why this requires deletion per our policies. Sandstein 12:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific dissent[edit]

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

It's a well sourced op-ed piece that fails WP:NPOV, WP:NOTESSAY, and WP:NOTOPINION. The subject may well be notable but this essay is so deeply flawed that it would likely have to be rewritten from the ground up to pass NPOV. Better to blow it up and start from scratch. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep - this nomination is so deeply flawed I have no slightest idea how to even start addressing the accusations. ("Staszek Lem never stopped beating his wife") - not a single specific argument but alphabet soup. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. An important topic. Certainly the article is capable of improvement. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly an encylopedic topic, and it's well sourced, easily well enough to meet WP:GNG. The nominator hasn't followed WP:BEFORE very well here. Omni Flames (talk) 06:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 11:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. 131.142.152.179 (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)— 131.142.152.179 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete I just read the entire article and there's absolutely nothing in there wouldn't be blatantly obvious from a reading of a two-paragraph description of how science works. That's not to say there's anything wrong with what's written there, just that... Come on, do we really need an article explaining that yes, sometimes scientists disagree, and yes, sometimes people talk about it? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- re: " blatantly obvious from a reading of a two-paragraph description of how science works." - and where this description to be found is? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All over the place. There's no particular description I had in mind. I've read hundreds, if not thousands, of such descriptions from which I could extrapolate everything in that article. Instead of getting defensive over this nomination (which your activities here strongly suggests you to have done), why not try to improve the article to address the concerns expressed here? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to address "concerns expressed here". But... "All over the place", "this essay is so deeply flawed" - here is my addressing: ~~you are bullshitting, colleagues, pardon my French.~~ These concerns are of WP:IDONTLIKEIT kind, i.e., not actionable. I am not "defensive", I am utterly confused. I am not promoting some minor business, or my girlfriend, or a kranky theory; I have absolutely no hidden agenda (and BTW hence I have no interest "to improve the article" beyond what I've already written, and which is would be well beyond my expertise). I need an education about what was wrong. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that display of psychic powers in telling me exactly what I think. I'd be impressed, if you weren't completely and utterly wrong. As for what is wrong with the article, because I am the forgiving sort, I'll stoop to repeating myself and trying to expound upon this in the attempt to help you understand my concerns. Basically, there is no part of that article that isn't covered in more detail elsewhere.

Scientific consensus covers the disagreements among scientists as a normal part of science, an issue which is also addressed in Scientific method, as indicated in the article itself.
Manufactured controversy covers everything mentioned in the "False scientific dissent" section, and much of what is mentioned in the "Effects on modern public policies" section.
The Galileo affair article covers everything mentioned about Galileo, and in much more depth.
Lysenkoism covers everything mentioned about Lysenkoism, and in much more depth as well.
Politicization of science covers everything in the "Effects on modern public policies" section, and much of what is mentioned in the "False scientific dissent" section.

Indeed, most of the article consists of summaries of parts of other articles, and the only materials which doesn't is -as I've already said- easily deduced from reading a brief description of how science works. This article is at best, useless repetition, and at worst, the foundation for a coatrack upon which to push fringe POVs in the future. (I'm not saying it's fringe pushing now.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In fact I did not write them as summaries. Some "main" tags were added later by other people and I followed their example. I see your point, but I still disagree with your conclusion. Further discussion, if chance happens, will belong to the article talk page. At the moment I will only mention WP:SUMMARY. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you mentioned WP:SUMMARY. It doesn't do anything to contradict me, nor does your statement that you see my points but still disagree without giving the slightest reason as to why. In fact, your statement here is pretty much textbook WP:LIKE. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was not clear enough. If the article does not survive, then I see no point wasting time arguing; contrary to your impression, I am not that attached to this article. But if it survives, we can discuss its improvement. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUMMARY seems particularly relevant, as it implies that the same content can appear at various different articles, each one exploring one part of the topic at different levels of detail. This means that having some content repeated is not a problem; most broad concept articles are "summaries of parts of other articles" and we consider them valid topics and viable articles. Diego (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to scientific method. After removing the repetition and verbosity the material that remains could easily fit into the scientific method article. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the compliment. I never thought I am verbose :-). Since wikipedia is not paper I fail to see why a separate topic must be merged in a broader one. Please explain the advantages. (A possible one is to avoid overlap, but now it is exactly 0%) Staszek Lem (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable here for keeping the article. - EugεnS¡m¡on 20:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Relevant topic identifies by the sources, with well-known political and historic cases.Diego (talk) 08:07, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cardo (record producer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, little depth of coverage in reliable sources. Of the three sources cited, one link is dead and the other two are the standard Q & A interviews of "up and coming artists" from record magazines. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:TOOSOON. Meatsgains (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I've been watching this article for several months and frankly never found anything to actually suggest its own convincing substance. I had frankly planned to PROD but had not, in case it was removed.... SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG as I can't seem to find any real coverage in reliable sources here. I think it's WP:TOOSOON for an article at the moment, perhaps later on this person might be notable enough for an article. Omni Flames (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article does not have significant information about the subject. Bmbaker88 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- run of the mill producer and rapper/DJ. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added more credible cites such as MTV and Complex. Subject has produced for noteworthy acts as rihanna, nici minaj and jay-z. Worse case will re-write from scratch if necessary to meet quality. Krealkayln (talk • contribs) 20:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still not convincing enough and, by all means I would not immediately restart it or else will be deleted as a result of this AfD; I would only wait until at least a few years (at best) have passed and there's better substantial sources. SwisterTwister talk 00:36, 29 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 12:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular Operating Environment[edit]

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

WP:N and WP:COPYPASTE - Product seems to lack notoriety, page is written with copy + paste from corporate website, thus seems to look like advertisement Nicnote (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources of WP:COPYPASTE include: http://www.rsi.co.jp/science/cs/ccg/svl_e.html ("The Scientific Vector Language (SVL) is at the heart of MOE's flexibility.") and https://www.chemcomp.com/MOE-Structure_Based_Design.htm (" a streamlined interface for active site visualization and ligand optimization") Nicnote (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just corporate blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Also possible copyvio as noted above.Dialectric (talk) 03:34, 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elam W. Wright[edit]

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

Mid-ranking officer who received a single Distinguished Service Cross, a second-level award. No other claim to fame. Fails WP:SOLDIER and every other standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SOLDIER is not satisfied, and that's the only real claim to notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm thankful for his service, but lots of other men did the same. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm also still seeing nothing for his own confirmed independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Wray[edit]

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

Junior officer who received a single Distinguished Service Cross, a second-level award, and a Silver Star, a third-level award. No other claim to fame. Completely fails WP:SOLDIER and every other standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails SOLDIER and there's no other real claim to notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nothing that suggests notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing close for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph C. McCrum[edit]

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

Mid-ranking officer who received a single Distinguished Service Cross, a second-level award, and a Silver Star, a third-level award. No other claim to fame. Fails WP:SOLDIER and every other standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for failing SOLDIER. Also, this obituary says he was only nominated for the DSC. Contrary to the unlinked reference in the article, I can't find him in militarytimes.com, which tends to support his just being nominated. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nowhere near convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm thankful for his service, but he's really just a run of the mill soldier. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XT Brewing Company[edit]

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

Fails WP:N CerealKillerYum (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This WP:SPA-created article fails WP:ORG. I find only passing mentions in beer recipe books and pub guides. No significant coverage turned up in gNews and gNewspaper searches. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:ORG. As Geoff says above, the only mentions in WP:RS are mentions-in-passing. -- The Anome (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the page created states that he works at the company on his User page [1]. Obvious COI.CerealKillerYum (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't consider the references in this article to be reliable sources - they seem to be small blogs. These do not and will not have a reputation for fact checking resulting in editorial integrity: See the overview section in identifying reliable sources. No significant coverage: see Google News and so on.Steve Quinn (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article passes WP:GNG because it has received significant coverage across multiple sources which include WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maybeparaphrased (talk • contribs) 14:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- poorly source article on non-notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 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. JohnCD (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bud Harbaugh[edit]

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

NCO who received a single Distinguished Service Cross, a second-level award. No other claim to fame. Completely fails WP:SOLDIER and every other standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for failing SOLDIER. I can only read a few lines from his obituary, but it doesn't look promising. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nothing comes up in Google books. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing confirming his independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 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 procedural close. Already deleted pursuant to Special:Permalink/730817529#Undisclosed Paid Editing Farm. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Wooten[edit]

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

Page was created by a WP:SPA. The entity has 53 mentions on Google news but, for an Internet Entrepreneur who has been around since 1993, that's *nothing*. Fails WP:N CerealKillerYum (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article created by blocked sock User:Carlieson see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carriearchdale. Theroadislong (talk) 21:47, 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. Sandstein 12:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John S. Creaghe[edit]

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

Junior officer who received a single Distinguished Service Cross, a second-level award, as well as a Silver Star, a third-level award. No other claim to fame. Fails WP:SOLDIER and every other standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article is about him, on the occasion of a training facility at Fort Drum being named after him, but that's not enough to satisfy SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nothing comes up in Google books. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 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 speedy delete. Article created by a banned user. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive846#I_would_like_to_report_user:daniellagreen_for_doing_paid_editing_with_nondisclosure_to_wikipedia_as_is_the_current_policy. Mkdw ^talk 21:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard B. Herman[edit]

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

fails WP:N CerealKillerYum (talk) 20:32, 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. JohnCD (talk) 08:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest T. Roberts Jr.[edit]

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

NCO who received a single Distinguished Service Cross, a second-level award. No other claim to fame. Completely fails WP:SOLDIER and every other standard. Other awards just for service and qualification. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nothing comes up in Google books. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single receipt of second highest award, reasonable presumption not likely to meet GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing at all actually suggestive of the needed independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - winner of the DSC might be notable if there was something else that marked him off above normal service to the nation. More information is needed. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 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. JohnCD (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ward D. Fleishman[edit]

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

Private who received a single Distinguished Service Cross, a second-level award. No other claim to fame. Completely fails WP:SOLDIER and every other standard. Deprodded with the comment "incorrect reasoning for deletion, he received five awards". The other awards were the Purple Heart, awarded simply because he was killed in combat, two service medals and a qualification badge. Being killed in action is not a claim to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nothing comes up in Google books. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single receipt of second highest award, reasonable presumption not likely to meet GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing for actual independent notability of his own. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 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. JohnCD (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John H. Swenson[edit]

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

Mid-ranking officer who received a single Distinguished Service Cross, a second-level award. No other particular claim to fame. Fails WP:SOLDIER and every other standard. Deprodded with the comment "incorrect reasoning for deletion, he received multiple awards". He did indeed receive other awards, but all low-level awards, not even third-level, to be expected of an officer of his rank. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- do not see sufficient coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single receipt of second highest award, reasonable presumption not likely to meet GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing actually suggestive of the needed independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Herman E. Stein[edit]

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

NCO who received a single Distinguished Service Cross, a second-level award. No other claim to fame. Completely fails WP:SOLDIER and every other notability standard. Deprodded with the comment "incorrect reasoning for deletion, he received two awards and was wounded in combat". The other award was the Purple Heart, awarded simply because he was wounded in combat. Being wounded or even killed in action is not a claim to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the sources do not suggest notability and we are unlikely to see more. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single receipt of second highest award, reasonable presumption not likely to meet GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't fulfil notability requirements --Molestash (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing convincing for his own confirmed independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 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 speedily deleted by User:Bishonen under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 00:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big Duck Games[edit]

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

Created by User:Intrepidmarketinggroup this article has one blog post as a reference, I can find nothing much else, let alone any in-depth coverage of the company. Fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete under criterion A1. Heat Is Cool 20:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A1. I concur. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 20:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied per A7. Bishonen | talk 23:38, 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. Sandstein 16:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Applebaum[edit]

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

Fails WP:N CerealKillerYum (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable "life-style" and "business" coach. These are the types of positions that seems to encourage promotional Wikipedia articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-promotion article. The only citation given for the opening claim that she is notable or 'known' is from one of her own press releases. OddElly311 (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as wholly advertorial. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PR flummery. How these get through in the first place beats me. Engleham (talk) 11:09, 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. JohnCD (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rasheed Richmond[edit]

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

fails WP:N CerealKillerYum (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Not notable as an internet entrepreneur or political fundraiser.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still advertorial and also having no means of better confirmed independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 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. JohnCD (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Conway (computer entrepreneur)[edit]

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

fails WP:LOCAL and WP:N CerealKillerYum (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a Google news search turns up almost nothing. The M2Woman magazine has a column not about Conway, but written by him. NZBusiness has a number of articles that all sit behind a paywall, but from the synopses one gets the impression that Conway supplied the articles. The article does not establish notability, and a Google news search doesn't do that either. Schwede 66 10:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable computer scientist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still by far containing nothing actually confirmed for his own independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. Wikipedia:Places of local interest (WP:LOCAL) is an opinion essay, rather than a guideline or policy, and is almost exclusively about places of local interest, rather than subjects (people). WP:NPASR with a valid deletion rationale. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind A. Raichur[edit]

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

Fails WP:LOCAL CerealKillerYum (talk) 18:57, 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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Musical clock[edit]

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

Absolutely no references at all. Contains virtually entirely original research and I don't think this is a notable topic for its own article - some of this could be moved to Striking clock but the rest needs to go. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By the title, The Musical Clock: Musical & Automation Clocks and Watches is an entire book about the topic. Unfortunately, I have no way of accessing the book, but the existence of an entire book on the topic should prove notability. I am trying to verify the rest of the article; the parts that remain unsourced can be trimmed. Altamel (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that there are no references is not a reason to delete; it's a reason to add references, which, as Altamel points out, do exist (here's another musical clock book; who would've thought?). As for the WP:OR aspect, the article could always be gutted or revised to the last good version, since there is a way to write this one without using original research. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 17:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are sources presented in this AfD and on the page which establish notability. However, the article did only contain almost all original research, and that should not remain here. I deleted almost every part of the version at the time of deletion nomination. Now that this content is gone, whatever is left can be judged for compliance with notability criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:HEY. Lots of potential here! Bearian (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It took me five seconds to find an image right here at English Wikipedia. Please! Bearian (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could be an excellent article on a fascinating subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: it won't necessarily be easy to track down sources for expanding this article as some of these books are out of print, but there are certainly sources out there – apart from the two books already mentioned there are also [2], [3] and [4], the last of which includes musical clocks among other musical items, and was produced by the Museum Speelklok in the Netherlands ("speelklok" being Dutch for "musical clock") where you can see their collection of musical clocks. Richard3120 (talk) 21:19, 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. JohnCD (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tarar Media Corporation[edit]

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

Tarar Media Corporation is a fake corporation. Its Facebook Page has only 3 likes and its twitter page has 5 followers. The picture used on Tarar Media Corporation on Facebook page is taken from British Times - a personal blog. and the other two references are blank and ambiguous taken from Fitraak News - a blog. I will suggest that the page Tarar Media Corporation must also be nominated for deletion because its references are irrelevant and do not show notability. Sneha Hurrain (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, I've also added a possible hoax tag to the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it's not a hoax there's very little if any coverage in third party reliable sources and I don't see any evidence that WP:CORP is met. Hut 8.5 21:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also concur, nothing close to minimally convincing including of the needed coverage for notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article has very little information about the subject and has weak references. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:03, 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: already deleted per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=730817529#Undisclosed_Paid_Editing_Farm (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Becker[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and is a clear advertisement. The page was created by a WP:SPA [[5]] who has only 3 edits. All sources except a few are from non-notable publications. There are some notable publications in the reference list but, if you look closer, they're not applicable. For example, this [[6]] Hpost link is to an author page. It's not an article about "Alex Becker" and it's not even about this Alex Becker (it's some other Alex Becker). This article on CNBC [[7]] is better but it's not about the entity but his views on success. The subject also wrote a book which did make it on the US Today list but it was for the independent category. Its highest ranking was #103 in best-sellers which is totally different than what one would get from "The book went to break multiple national bestseller lists including USA Today’s and the national indie bestseller list."[[8]]. Obviously, this is an advertisement filled with puffery that was written by someone close to the subject. Please delete. CerealKillerYum (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A random sample of six cited sources found (a) material written by the subject, (b) possibly reliable source searchenginejournal, but it contained only trivial coverage and it failed verification, and (c) four sources that do not fit Wikipedia's definition of reliable (smartpassiveincome, homebusinesshangout, onlinefanatic, and scitechnation). Moreover, three of the latter four failed verification. If there's any wheat hiding among the chaff, the effort required to find it dwarfs that of starting over from scratch. Apply WP:TNT. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is written like a marketing piece for the subject instead of information about the subject. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:10, 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. Already speedy deleted following creator's blanking. Sandstein 16:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Thomas[edit]

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

There's a claim to notability with the development of the "world's first concrete based floating solar power plant", however this notability does not seem to be able to be verified, as I'm unable to locate sources for verification. Also, the only hit that "Ajay Thomas" receives is this: [9], which does not refer to the subject of this article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - this is my provisional assessment because I do not see the need for the rush for deletion only hours after the article was created. It is incorrect to say that "the only hit that "Ajay Thomas" receives is this: ....". A quick search has produced this from the Times of India and this from The Hindu two of the most respected papers in the region. There are a number of other sources. We can discuss whether an article on his project might be better than an article on him but outright deletion is premature and not justified. Just Chilling (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear case of WP:TOSOON. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough reliable independent coverage to satisfy WP:BLP. In addition, based on the history of this article and Vatsaa Energy Private Limited, it seems to be a clear COI case. Beagel (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the author blanked the page by this edit, it should be speedy deleted per G7. Beagel (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as by far nothing at all close for his own independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an executive in a non-notable company; fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 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. JohnCD (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

T.J. Kirk[edit]

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

Same reasons as last time. No indication of notability per WP:BIO and no citations to reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete After researching, T.J. Kirk is most definitely a notable internet personality. His channel has been active since 2006, and has since elevated to one of the top content creators of the YouTube atheist community. T.J. Kirk, or, "The Amazing Atheist," is much more notable than many internet personalities that have long had Wikipedia pages about them. He has appeared on CNN and various other YouTube channels and websites whilst raising charities and supporting numerous movements; however, some more independent and/or thorough sources would be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.240.128.185 (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - WP:NOTPROMO, and clearly this is becoming a problem if it's back again. If there was anything showing notability, you'd think a two-year gaop would find it, but as it apparently has not, the subject is still not notable. MSJapan (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable internet personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as this was deleted by AfD once before and here we are with Delete again, still nothing actually suggestive of convincing notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 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 Move to aircraft bridge and rewrite accordingly. Sandstein 16:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Port Columbus Airport Crossover Taxiway Bridge[edit]

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

Airport taxiway bridges are not notable. Half the page is written as an advert for the architect and engineers of record. The only link to the page is from the architect's page. Millbrooky (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from this profile in a trade magazine and press releases by the architects, I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per doncram's excellent work to transform this into a general article about taxiway bridges. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although transform (and move/rename) the article to cover the general topic of a taxiway bridge, with the Port Columbus one being a perfectly good example with photos, etc., to use in the article.

The nominator is right that we don't need an article about each and every separate taxiway bridge in the world, but we do need one general article. I happen to have created many articles about historic bridges listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and it has been interesting to learn about different special bridge types (truss bridge (with many variations), deck arch bridge, girder bridge, slab bridge, etc.) in the process, from reading the wikipedia articles about them. There are some very boring types of bridges now, but the first ones of each type are going to be notable (e.g. North 21st Street Bridge, a "continuous concrete rigid-frame girder bridge", is NRHP-listed). While the article is short, the source for that article makes clear that it is historic and important, although there are now thousands upon thousands of such bridges. And, whether or not the first ones are known, it is also perfectly legitimate to use any example of the type, in an article about the type.
I don't think the article will survive AFD process if it is not transformed, and I like the photos and think the bridges look beautiful, and this is my idea to save the coverage and use it well in building the encyclopedia. Also we need an article on the general topic: in the world there are probably 50 to 200 or so of them, and they are different: they are bridges to carry airplanes in the special setting of airports which need to intertwine road and rail/metro traffic with traffic of people-movers in the airport with traffic of the airplanes themselves. Giant taxiway bridges solve a problem, and didn't exist until probably the 1960's or 70's (my guess), and require different materials / technology than other bridges. When the first taxiway bridge in the U.S. reaches 50 years old, it will become eligible to be listed on the NRHP and I would support such a listing. It's not far-fetched: consider the 1935-built Fresno Municipal Sanitary Landfill, which was NRHP-listed and further recognized as a National Historic Landmark in 2001.
Taxiway bridges are mentioned explicitly in about 10 Wikipedia articles already (where I will wikilink the term), and will naturally be included in many more articles about airports in the future.

The proper vote for this is Keep, though the suggestion/requirement to move/rename the article can be included in a decision. (Note that move and rename are not AFD outcomes recognized in the wp:AFDSTATS system.) I may edit somewhat in the article towards generalizing it, but note that during this AFD it will likely remain a stub/starter article on the topic. The general topic, however, is obviously valid IMO. --do ncr am 18:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: why not then vote to "merge" this article with the taxiway bridge article (once it is created), rather than vote for keep? If we had a general article for taxiway bridges, then I would support a merge. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because my interest is in avoiding deletion, which is what we at AFD do too much of, punitively and unimaginatively, IMHO.

I strongly prefer to Keep this one and move it (which has the same effect as a new creation plus a merger). I am motivated to work on the general topic only because of this AFD. I personally feel we ought to take whatever steps possible to support editors like User:Wsvan who created this article, instead of demoralizing them and driving them away with negative tags, AFDs, etc. I further see that the photos in the article, along with other photos related to architects Rosales + Partners, are under deletion nomination pressure at Commons. But Wsvan obtained OTRS copyright release for other photos that were in the batch, and I am hopeful they will be encouraged and persist in doing the same for these ones. If we delete the article, we say "screw you" to the content editor and most likely lose the photos, and we would have nothing with which to start a new general article. Also I don't want to steal the "credit" for starting a new article from the editor who had the creative idea and did the work. :) I don't blame the deletion nominator or deletion voters here, but I feel with some passion that the Wikipedia editing environment is lousy in general and specifically it is bad because of how AFD is operated.
By the way I have just added some to the article towards making a list of taxiway bridges and the like (at LAX, Indianapolis, Florida, Amsterdam Schiphol so far). There may be very few of them in the world, maybe less a dozen or so, I am now thinking. I do recall how unusual it seemed to me when I first saw, from a motorway below, an airplane crossing, probably at LAX. Maybe it is still very unusual. From Google maps it looks like Dallas/Fort Worth airport doesn't have any. Also from Google maps I can see that Copenhagen Airport has one runway and one taxiway crossing a roadway, Denmark 221. --do ncr am 20:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now the article lists 18 airports having bridges or tunnels, some with multiple ones, with a 1967-built taxiway bridge at O'Hare Airport seeming to be the earliest! And numerous references. And although the article requires re-organizing some if/when it is moved, to Aircraft bridges, I hope all can see that there's a very solid topic there. The article already jumped to the top of Google searches on "taxiway bridge design", and I find no existing books on the topic, so maybe it's going to be an important article. :) --do ncr am 01:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Those are all excellent points. To be honest, I share many of your concerns about the AFD process and biting newcomers. I commend your recognition of the fact that we did not have a general article about taxiway bridges, and more generally, for your creative thinking about how to resolve this AFD nomination. I am in full support of transitioning this article into a general article about taxiway bridges, and I have struck my previous vote accordingly. Given the fact that Aircraft bridge and Taxiway bridge are both redlinks (and given your excellent work to transform the article) I think you can safely make a bold page move to one of those titles. Thanks again, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Technically now I think it would best be moved to Aircraft bridge with Taxiway bridge redirected to there, and then cleaned up a bit. I have a few times moved articles that were at AFD, but sometimes that is confusing to a closer (e.g., here, where a closer objected to the article having been transformed during the AFD). I invested time and effort so this article will receive Keep outcome. --do ncr am 06:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to runway bridge or taxiway bridge and keep the general content while removing the COATRACK heavily focusing on the one in Columbus. The article has good information about those in general, and it seems to be a notable topic, but individual runway bridges are not notable. Smartyllama (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is calling for a Keep decision, with condition that the article be moved. "Move" is not one of the defined AFD outcomes. I mostly agree with your general view, with the caveat that individual runway or taxiway bridges are not notable, unless they are in fact notable. :) Anyhow, in a moved article, I would reduce the emphasis on the Columbus example, but it is perfectly fine to discuss it as a convenient example, for which we have detailed information. I would also expand discussion of the Chicago O'Hare example, which possibly was the first taxiway bridge ever, and which anyhow has been discussed in some detail in several reliable sources. --do ncr am 06:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Aircraft bridge as the parent topic. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i give up, given repeated !votes for what I consider to be a technically invalid AFD outcome, but which a closer just might use just to be weird. I hope/trust they won't do something else just to be weird now, because I just now moved the article under AFD to Aircraft bridge, and set up redirects at Taxiway bridge and Runway bridge.

Anyhow, all who commented after 12 July agree. So this is ready to be closed (Keep). --do ncr am 16:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move as suggested. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bus & Coach of the Year[edit]

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

Subject is an obscure award, with virtually no independant mainstream RS coverage. Cited sources are almost entirely affiliated with the industry/award and fail WP:RS. Subject ultimately fails GNG. See also this related discussion. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Car of the year is less than half as long, so if one considers the number of buses vs the number of cars in the world, then one must grant that this article is significant. Useddenim (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article length is not a criteria in WP:GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (rhapsodise) 22:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the one who created the article (from translation) I will only comment, since I'm just fed up and don't want to waste any energy on this. But I will give my views on why I created it in the first place. It is quite obvious to me that it will never have any in-depth coverage outside the press specifically covering the bus and coach industry. If I'd had any idea that in-depth press coverage in general media would be a requirement for notability, I would obviously not have wasted time translating it. Here is my view on how the award works:
- A jury of independent bus and coach journalists representing a publication in their respective country do a series of real-life tests and professional assessments on buses and coaches that have been enrolled by the manufacturers.
- Each jury member gives a number of points to each participant based on their judgement. Then the points from each of the jury members are added up and if more than one contestant get the same score, the jury will together jugde who was the better.
- The jury announces the winner, which is given the rights to use the title Bus of the Year or Coach of the Year in their marketing.
- How the manufacturers choose to use this in their marketing varies a lot between the manufacturers and also between the local distributors. How the industry-related press covers it is also very different, and probably quite inconsistent. On the Bus of the Year winners there is not much visible marketing except from press/publicity and on demonstrator vehicles. On Coach of the Year winners it is quite common that there will be a large "Coach of the Year 20xx" sticker on the rear window on quite a lot of vehicles delivered to customers.

It puzzles me a bit that none of the other articles in the Commercial vehicle awards category are up for deletion, so I want to compare against them. This award is in every way quite equal to both the International Truck of the Year and International Van of the Year. They all claim to be "international", but are limited to the European market. They also have about the same status in their respective industry and among "fans", or possibly the bus/coach award has an even higher status. The truck industry is somewhat larger than the bus/coach industry, but not that different to make a difference in notability, and I can't really say I've seen any non-industry coverage of the truck award up trough the years either. The van award is somewhat different, since vans are not entirely limited to commercial vehicles, and thus has a broader appeal. And then there are those Japanese Blue Ribbon Award (railway) and Laurel Prize. From their descriptions they appear to be entirely fan-based, non-professional awards, and the Blue Ribbon Award seem to have the characteristics of a beauty contest for trains. Also these are limited to one country only, in contrast to all other mentioned awards. Those awards are in my view extremely obscure, so I am just a bit baffled that their notability is not questioned.

I made this article for busfans (like me) to read, at a time when I had the impression that this was a good enough reason for such an article to exist. Any commercial or publicity-related aspect of its presence was not considered at all. I have since then learned that things that may only be of interest to busfans are considered too obscure for English Wikipedia, which is also why I out of lack of motivation have more or less stopped contributing any new here, in fear of the effort being a waste. This is also why I will not vote on this AfD. Bergenga (talk) 18:02, 8 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! 17:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The award appears to be taken quite seriously in the bus/coach world. (cf this), and there are references for all of the key information (some are broken, so need to be fixed). Because this award doesn't include the US, sources don't leap out at me while doing a search, and I find the transport world outside of the US to be, well, completely foreign. (Such as this.) But this article seems solid to me. LaMona (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is not English vs non-English sources. The problem is the lack of in depth coverage from independent (non-affiliated) reliable sources. I haven't been able to find much of anything. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator is incorrect in conflating "independent" and "mainstream" - Wikipedia is not meant to be an encyclopedia of the mainstream alone, it's meant to be, in theory at least, a generic encyclopedia with branches into specific topics that go as deep as is justified by independent coverage. As you would expect given what it is, this award is covered by every independent publication within the industry, i.e. all journals not involved in its judging or promotion. Expecting a bus award to be covered in the mainstream press is simply not realistic - to apply such a test, well, you might as well be declaring 99% of sector to be non-notable. While Wikipedia's treatment of this major aspect of human activity is exceptionally poor for a supposed encyclopedia with the definition I gave (and quite obviously it's because for every person here who knows the topic area enough to know what does get independent coverage and what doesn't, they are outnumbered by a hundred who think a bus is just a bus), to delete articles like this would tip it from poor to completely useless. If the nominator is struggling to find evidence of independent coverage, I suggest they ask themselves if they would even know where to look, and that unlike a lot of other sectors which get plenty of coverage in Wikipedia, because there is still a profit motive for people writing about the bus industry for a living, much of the coverage they want will be offline or behind paywalls/subscriptions. I could assist in that endeavour with my own knowledge, but I long ago gave up on the idea Wikipedia (or more accurately, Wikipedians) had any desire or capability to create high quality articles relating to buses, bus transport or the bus industry. The ones that are here are pretty poor, of no real use to anyone except those readers with no alternative - which can't be anyone inside the industry I'm sure, nor anyone with more than a passing interest in it and therefore willing to pay/buy/subscribe/research offline. I was actually pleasantly surprised to find this one even existed. Long may it stay, but I am doubtful. Jorm34 (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I nearly closed myself, I would suggest considering if this can be improved first; and if not, we can renominate if needed for attention. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 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 merge to List of stars in Pisces. czar 05:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HIP 2[edit]

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

The article makes no claim to notability for this star under WP:NASTRO and I can find nothing notable about it. Lithopsian (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD template was removed twice from the article. Possibly without malice since this is a very new editor. 90.216.178.120 (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The object has a simbad entry [10], but otherwise I could find no secondary sources suitable to satisfy WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I don't see a compelling merge target either. Hence, delete --Mark viking (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stars in Pisces, surely.—S Marshall T/C 19:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't in that list as far as I can tell, so it would have to be a merge. Given that basic data is verifiable from simbad, I'd be OK with a merge into that list. --Mark viking (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a merge might be more than is needed. What I had in mind was more of a smerge, but I think we're basically coming from the same place here.—S Marshall T/C 22:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are in agreement. --Mark viking (talk) 22:36, 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. Sandstein 16:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamfinders[edit]

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

Not notable. There is some dispute over whether the show even aired. ubiquity (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its external link, the LostMedia Wiki, "claimed" it ran for three episodes, which still makes not-notable and unverifiable. — Wylie pedia 13:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some better evidence that this even existed would be helpful. Trivialist (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the fact there's hardly any substantial information suggests enough there's simply not enough substance for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 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. czar 00:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apex Online Racing[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and has no reliable coverage from third-party sources. Doing a search for "Apex Online Racing" brings up only forum posts and other unreliable material. This is the best I could find throughout my searches, and it's a summary of their app.

I also propose that the following are discussed too:

Apex Online Racing Formula One Leagues Season 3
Apex Online Racing Formula One Leagues Season 4
Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three articles per nom. They do not appear to be notable. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete all no mention outside primary sources and forums.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all... these articles do not appear to be notable (they're not even official), and all their sources are primary. 23:02, 20 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. Hut 8.5 21:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Borycki[edit]

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

Failed PROD. Reason: Unsourced BLP since article creation in 2009. Fails WP:NACTOR (only notable role was supporting role on Harper's Island, which alone does not satisfy NACTOR), and fails WP:GNG outright (only a couple of passing mentions in regards to Harper's Island and Nightmare at the End of the Hall in Variety and THR, and no other significant mentions anywhere). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Definitely needs sources, but the credit list is substantial and if one role was major, that and a number of minor ones might meet NACTOR. I checked source material and most everything is list stuff, I will acknowledge that I'm not finding a lot of independent reviews. That said, being noted at all in Variety is not chicken feed. Holding fire for now pending other comments. Montanabw^(talk) 23:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Variety thing is a passing mention. This is rather the point – subject only merits passing mentions (and not many of those). Even on Harper's Island her role, though "regular credited cast", was not particularly major (which I can attest, as I watched that show). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NACTOR. The only source I found that focused on her was this one about her appearing on Pretty Little Liars, which never happened. That article looks like a regurgitation of her WP article, which regurges IMDb. No actress activity in five years. — Wylie pedia 01:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep – her Pretty Little Liars role was recast with Amanda Schull before the premiere of the pilot, for reasons that I have never seen explained... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her personal website is not indepedent and IMDb is not a reliable source and as an attempt to try and compile everyone who ever appeared in a film intentional includes lots of people we would not at all consider notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing close for her own independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - females can wear red shirts, too. Virtually all of her roles have a single, first name. She's not a scream queen; she's a C-List scream countess. She was not even credited in Scary Movie 4. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 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. It seems that nobody actually wants to keep this, despite the lengthy discussion? Sandstein 16:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian post-grunge bands[edit]

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

This page has multiple issues and has had the "multiple issues" template for over a year. It has no sources, and the stated inclusion criteria is subjective and arbitrary. Shelbystripes (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails second point of WP:LISTPEOPLE and without any verifiable sources that state that these bands have any link to post-grunge, fails WP:NOR as well. In its current state it's just going to be a battleground for genre warriors without actually providing any particularly useful information. Richard3120 (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Eh. Well, the sources referenced by WP:LISTPEOPLE's second bullet point don't necessarily have to be cited in the article. If you visit a random list of bands, say, odds are most of the entries you see will not have sources. Ideally they all would, but because lists are commonly restricted to items with Wikipedia articles, the presumption is that the requisite sources can also be found in the band's article. If it's just a matter of pulling a reference from one article into another, that's not a great reason for deletion. On its face, this seems like a reasonable list. If someone were to start splitting up List of post-grunge bands into country-based sublists, then eh. The problem, however, is that it's not a necessary or consistent convention to do so, and this anomaly looks to be based entirely on an unreliable source per the lead. Allmusic's genres in the sidebar are not considered reliable sources. The content of the staff-written biographies can be, but this list clearly came from the sidebar (e.g. Artificial Joy Club's entry doesn't mention post-grunge except for there). Given it's only based on that one source, and given it's an unnecessary spin-out of the main list, it doesn't quite seem worth keeping. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Rhododendrites, I didn't spot that reference "according to AllMusic" in the text - I was looking for references down the bottom of the page. But as you say, if the one source used isn't considered reliable by Wikipedia standards, we would need to find the reference to post-grunge from elsewhere. Richard3120 (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this is not a valid classification of the listed bands, then Category:Canadian post-grunge groups will need to be deleted as well. postdlf (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Postdlf, I disagree with your logic. The problem is not that such an article can't ever exist, it's that the article currently fails multiple Wikipedia standards and there's no one rushing to improve it. Actually, the fact that a category exists and duplicates the current effort of this article is another reason to delete this article. Categories are easier to maintain, because whether or not a band belongs in a category is discussed and maintained on each band's article based on that article's content. This article in its current form offers nothing, except a list that duplicates the category page, and there's no one maintaining the article. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how any of this works. On category "duplication", see WP:NOTDUP. Re: no one's working on it, see WP:NOEFFORT, WP:NOTCLEANUP, and deletion policy at WP:ATD. We do not delete articles based on their current state, but rather based on their potential; this is also integral to deletion procedure at WP:BEFORE. postdlf (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Postdlf, on the topic of "potential", the page has been flagged as having "multiple issues" for over a year per WP:ATD-T, which explicitly notes that tags are not permanent solutions. If you're saying that you are ready to improve this page and actually fix its deficiencies, or you know a specific editor who will, then I'll withdraw my delete request. Otherwise, this is an article that has no reliable sources to verify notability, and thus clearly fails WP:LISTPEOPLE, and there is absolutely nothing in WP:NOEFFORT or WP:ATD to suggest that it's inappropriate to delete a page in this case. The problem is not just that the page could use improvement; it's that the page is currently fatally flawed by making assertions unsupported by reliable sources, and I can't just remove the flawed content because that content is literally the entire page. There's nothing left if you try to surgically remove the problematic parts of the article. The article should be deleted because it has no content that is appropriate for Wikipedia, and nobody is proposing to add any. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page for this list doesn't even exist. So I can also say there's been "no effort" at raising substantive criticism or proposing solutions prior to starting this AFD, just apparently drive-by tagging done years ago. You're also conflating verifiability with notability, or maybe just being sloppy with the terms you're using. There's not an argument presented here that these bands are not notable or that post-grunge is not notable. The question you're raising is whether the classification of these bands as post-grunge is verifiable, and you are again only talking about the present state of the article, not whether sources can be found that verify the content. The content is a problem not merely for being unsourced, but only if it is unsourceable. postdlf (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should have been clearer. I meant to concede that someone could step up and convince me this topic is notable, in the same sense that any page could be notable if someone produced evidence of notability. I have in the past changed my mind on notability when someone made an effort to persuade me the page wsa notable. But nobody's doing that. I don't find it notable and nobody is stepping up to argue that it is. You're not even arguing it's notable, you're just arguing over technicalities and asserting that a similar category should also be deleted (which is inappropriate and outside the scope of this AfD). Are you actually arguing that this page is notable? If not, and nobody else is, then I guess for clarity I should stop leaving the door open to hypothetical possibilities and just declare, I don't think this topic is notable enough to warrant an article. The fact that someone could hypothetically come along in the future and argue that a page is notable, is not a valid reason to keep it. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one argued notability because no one raised that as a deletion argument, as I noted above. What exactly is the argument there that relates to this list? What are you viewing as the "topic", and what per WP:BEFORE did you do to assess its notability or lack thereof? postdlf (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Postdif, you're making the point that the category and list serve different purposes and thus do not duplicate each other (NOTDUP), and yet you're saying that deletion of one means the other "needs" to be deleted, too. That's another side of the same [many-sided] coin. We don't address deletion of categories here, and the existence of a category isn't predicated on a corresponding list just like the existence of a list is not predicated on the existence (or non-existence) of a corresponding category. There are plenty of categories that do not have (and should not have) corresponding list articles. Also, suggesting deletion because there's practically no viable content is not the same as AfD being used for cleanup. If I created this article and just listed "My friend Bob" and "Bilbo Baggins", you could still say "AfD isn't cleanup, and it's a notable topic" but there would be no content to save. Here, too, we have a list based on a single unreliable source. That's worse than it having no sources at all, to me anyway, as there would be room to have an open mind about what sources the article creator might've used, but if we know what was used and it's unreliable, that's about all there is to it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether deleting the list means also deleting the category depends on why the list is deleted. I've frequently seen people claim a list is "OR and unverifiable" but simultaneously say "the category is fine", which is incoherent. The only difference between a list and a category on the same concept is presentation format, so if we cannot verify that a band is post-grunge for purposes of a list we cannot do it for purposes of a category either. If you're simply making a WP:TNT argument but not challenging the very concept of the list, then one editing solution would be to just replace the current content of the list with the content of the category and then go from there (though pointing out that the only source presently cited is not reliable is far different from saying there are no sources that would verify any of these entries, that in a finished list, none of this content would be there; see policy at WP:PRESERVE). Or this could have been redirected to List of post-grunge bands pending further discussion on splitting by country. Jumping to AFD rather than trying any of these other means of content development is simply not a constructive use of anyone's time nor consistent with policy. postdlf (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lists of bands by nationality are fine, as are lists of bands by genre — but lists of bands constrained for both nationality and genre aren't useful. Yes, a band's inclusion in any list should always be supported by a proper source — but since the sourcing for a category is (or should be) located directly in the articles contained in the category, the question of whether the category should exist or not is entirely separate from whether the list is needed or not. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Grenma (band)[edit]

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

Not only have my searches not found anything actually substantial, there's nothing at all here or at Hungarian Wiki, only their own links listed and my searches simply found a few mentions including for events thus there's nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:23, 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 14:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found [this] nice venue article. It does mention the Bravo Otto award. Not a reliable source though. Bravo Otto alone not enough IMO. Gab4gab (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:49, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dox records[edit]

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

My searches are simply not finding anything actually substantially convincing, there's nothing to suggest there's the noticeable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 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 14:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Page also has zero references. Meatsgains (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem to make a convincing claim to notability, includes zero sources, and the use of the term "Dox Family" as a section heading which occupies half of the page does not suggest disinterest (and indeed, the username of the SPA who created the article happens to also be the name of someone listed as an employee of Dox). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Company doesn't appear to satisfy WP:GNG. A quick Google search shows only non-indepedent sources, like the company's own website. Omni Flames (talk) 06:31, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Neupane[edit]

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

The article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. The only sources listed on the article are self-promoting. Unable to find any substantive independent coverage of the subject. Nominated for Speedy in the past and previously listed at AfD with the result of softdelete due to lack of participation. Pax Verbum 04:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More information is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuuuu1000 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Yuuuu1000: Can you be more specific? I feel like I listed the reasons clearly, and they are evident by looking at the article itself. Thank you! -Pax Verbum 21:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

revise I suggest that reliable media sources is provided like articles etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuuuu1000 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Person may be new to the field of Music. सरोज उप्रेती (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this is true, and it seems that it is, that means they are likely not notable, and hence the above cited reasons for deletion, at least for now. -Pax Verbum 04:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, somewhat reluctantly, since Nepali musicians are not exactly over-represented on English Wikipedia. But the utter lack of independent sources, as well as the lack of any real claim to notability in the article, indicate that Prakash is not yet notable enough for an article. (That the photo of him is clearly a selfie doesn't exactly scream "notable" either.) --bonadea contributions talk 17:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The article contains three sources: this article^WebCite, this article^WebCite, and this article^WebCite. The websites are dubiously reliable and do not provide significant coverage about the subject. I searched for sources and was unable to find any sources that provided significant coverage about the subject.
No prejudice against recreation if new reliable sources surface that provide significant coverage of the subject.
Cunard (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all close to actually satisfying any form of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing here of any significance. Fails WP:GNG. Author has been removing CSD tags and even the current AfD notice. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:36, 29 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 www.tism.wanker.com. czar 05:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Might Be a Cunt, but I'm Not a Fucking Cunt[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 03:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As described in the article, this was quite a controversial song, so there should be sources that discuss the controversy but the article is currently unsourced. But it is close to 20 years old so it may be difficult to find them online. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to www.tism.wanker.com. If sources can be found, some of this could be merged there, but otherwise a redirect is about all that can be justified. --Michig (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mich. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It might be a subject, but it's not a notable subject. editorEهեইдအ😎 23:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to www.tism.wanker.com. I see one source has been added now, but I still don't think it's enough to satisfy the likes of WP:GNG. I believe a redirect would work here, it's probably a likely search term. Omni Flames (talk) 06:35, 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. czar 05:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of mascots[edit]

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

Article has become a cruft magnet littered with some rather questionable entries (most of which were removed here). Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 02:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...and? You could have made that comment on the list's talk page. I don't see a deletion argument, and AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just remove the page and bring back the original list of advertising mascots. The article itself is not even needed and should just be protected to prevent vandalisam.66.87.73.186 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:47, 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 14:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this list clearly has some issues, but that isn't grounds for deletion.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but we need to enforce some well defined inclusion criteria to keep the cruft out. I have no problem with this covering all sorts of mascots (advertising, sporting, whatever) so long as all the entries are notable as mascots. I'd suggest a purge of red links and of any entries that lack a link to an article who's primary subject is either described as being a "mascot" (or a completely uncontroversial synonym of "mascot") or is a list article unambiguously about mascots. Links to an article about the entity with a mascot might be allowable if the mascot has a substantial section within that article but definitely not for ones with passing mentions. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i can see the list being useful if all mascots without pages and/or no significance are cut. This needs a major reorganization. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 11:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful blue-link populated list. Does it need editorial TLC? Hell, yeah. Carrite (talk) 01:33, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tism.bestoff.[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Content added: album charted nationally. Subject reviewed by national media. Notable per WP:BAND#1&2.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Charted in Australia. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable charting album. Dan arndt (talk) 01:16, 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 speedy delete. Clear G11 , promotional editing by COI editor. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick B. Nicholaou[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. VViking_TalkEdits 14:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. VViking_TalkEdits 14:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Currently there are no reliable sources listed as to why this person is notable. A quick search query on Google found no Reliable sources indicating Notability. Self promotion to boot. VViking_TalkEdits 13:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am still working on the references, and how to have them done this week or next. I was out of the country for a couple of weeks and have just returned. I have intentionally written the article in a third voice and endeavored to be neutral and factual. The article contains many outside links to confirm the validity of the facts stated, and I am working on the References section. This seems to satisfy the overall goal desired in avoiding self-authorship. I hope you agree.NNicholaou (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had added a number of books I've contributed to and referenced them at Amazon, but those have been deleted by VViking. I speak at about 20 national and regional conferences each year and have been published in print more than 400 times. There are nearly 200 of my print articles available on our website for free (www.mbsinc.com), so this is not self-promotion to make a buck. Rather, it is to help more folks seeking help. I have become one of the chief IT strategists for IT in churches and ministries, and believe this page helps those looking for credible content. I hope you agree. More edits coming from others, including publishers, soon. (May I put those books back?)NNicholaou (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NNicholaou, it appears that the books that you listed as ones that you "contributed to" are ones that cite you. We do not include publications that cite a person's work as being their work. Also, any books or articles that the person has authored can be listed in a section called "Publications" or "Works", but they are not used as references since references must be about a person, not by a person. When you do list published works, include a full citation - title, place of publication, publisher and date for books, and title, journal title, volume, number, date and pages for journal articles. Unpublished materials (that is, materials that are on a web site but were not published through a publisher) are not included except in very unusual circumstances. Some of this is pretty normal Wikipedia practice, so if you are not an experienced Wikipedian, you probably should not create an article directly in Wikipedia but put it through the review process where you can get help creating the article. You should read WP:Notability (people), reliable sources, and naturally conflict of interest. LaMona (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP.142.105.159.60 (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOT#AUTOBIO. An article subject is never notable because the article subject says so. MSJapan (talk) 18:57, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Woodburn[edit]

(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 an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kosack (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Same situation as the AfD for Axel Tuanzebe, a youth player brought into the squad in pre-season friendlies and gets a couple of headlines. Fails WP:FOOTBALL having never played a senior game and not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 06:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 07:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 07:40, 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:01, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trentandluke[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The external links say nothing about this subject. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable YOuTube personalities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This one is kind of one of those frustrating YT articles. I've heard of them before and they're more or less known within the LGBT YT community, but they've yet to really gain a ton of coverage in the media. Most of it is of the type in the article or like this, where it's more of a cute, random article and not really something that would be considered in-depth per Wikipedia's guidelines. They were part of an art collaboration but I can't really find out where the collab was hosted offhand. So far I'm leaning towards delete since they, despite having a small fan following and some media presence, have yet to really get any true in-depth coverage of the type we'd need. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable internet "celebrities". No significant coverage. Smartyllama (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing coming close at all for their own convincing notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:09, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7. I told Class455fan1 to AfD it, but then changed my mind. In fact the article might be a borderline WP:CSD#G3 in places. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Spartan[edit]

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

Non Notable person. Also Autobiographical as the creator is the subject, which i found out when i researched this person. None of the sources mentioned contain "Wesley Spartan" anywhere (One is a blog, so is unreliable). Class455fan1 (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Class455fan1 (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Class455fan1 (talk) 12:27, 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 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gakhain Makh Orooson[edit]

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

This article sounds like a hoax. Sources don't match what the article says, and it seems this dish does not even exist. Googling "Gakhain makh orooson" only leads to this article, no mention elsewhere. This is a blatant hoax TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 11:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete. Hoax. "This dish was invented in 1200s, where Genghis Khan found potatoes, and cows and pigs in China. He found a way to put the three together. This concoction was well received within the Mongols." Potatoes? In China in the 13th Century? They are a New World crop. Plus, none of the links used as references refer to combinations of beef and pork, but instead to dishes made of sheep, goat, marmot and camel. And then there is the link to a recipe for P F Chang-style "mongolian beef." Finally, no sources found in gSearches. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree. I just tagged it {{db-hoax}} with an indication that the closing administrator should visit this discussion. I think we can speed this along. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Autobots#Cyberjets. Or wherever subsequent discussion may determine Sandstein 16:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberjets[edit]

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

Substub on a toy line. No evidence of notability and no sources cited. A prod was contested with the mystifying claim that this is acting as a disambiguation page "of sorts". Josh Milburn (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transformers (toy line), which seems like the most applicable place, even though it's not mentioned there. Deletion is alright, too, as there seem to be something like five incoming links from mainspace. I don't see significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which is actually slightly surprising to me, because I thought this sort of thing would probably get at least a few scattered trivial mentions on Google Books. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:43, 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 09:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is basically a disambiguation page now. How about turning it into one? --Pmsyyz (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What would it disambiguate? There don't seem to be any other articles on Wikipedia called "cyberjet" or "cyberjets". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transformers (toy line) per NinjaRobotPirate. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but to List of Autobots#Cyberjets as it is mentioned there at the section level. MB 04:05, 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) 07:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Langji Tianya[edit]

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

Subject is a graduate with an interest in poetry. No evidence of general notability. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of any notability. PamD 16:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I initially added an A7 tag to the article, but it has since managed to make a credible claim of significance, so I couldn't re-tag. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR by a mile. Absolutely nothing to establish notability. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:12, 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 delete. Favonian (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sham Idrees[edit]

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

Per WP:MUSBIO and WP:NACTOR : I fail to find any coverage in reliable sources about the album/single or award nomination (except this) also there is no source to support actor or recording producer. The article was created by a sock of Mnaqvii. Thank You – GSS (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If he's not notable why he was nominated for Shorty Award? He has a large fan base in Pakistan. It should be kept.-09:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's another SOURCE. This is an article about his YouTube video and it says his single Bolo Na topped UK Asian Charts. Now no more justification is required. He's notable enough for an article.--175.110.48.234 (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @175.110.48.234: Sources cited are not reliable also being nominated for Shorty Award doesn't mean the person is notable. GSS (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, fails WP:NACTOR, fails WP:MUSBIO. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please ask some Pakistani editors about his notability.--175.110.48.234 (talk) 13:33, 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 speedy delete. blatant spam, salted now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VAPH[edit]

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

Non-notable company, unsourced. Article has been speedied 3 times and re-created. Time to delete and Salt. PamD 08:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability. Google search for "VAPH" gives results of some belgian company. Results for "VAPH Shoes" seem to be mostly retailers. Also, WP:SOAP. Removing self promotion from the article would not leave with much content. Ilyushka88 | ^Talk! _Contribs 09:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and salt - this article is repeatedly created solely to promote the company's product. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:30, 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. Michig (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Hurd[edit]

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

Funimation voice actor notable for Kizaru in One Piece, which is a supporting role. And that's about it. WP:TOOSOON. Does not meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Not a regular on ANN or the Anime conventions circuit. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only minor roles, and our notability guideline for actors requires significant roles in multiple notable productions. There is also a lack of coverage in web/book sources to meet the general notability guideline. His ANN encylopedia entry notes that he won the "Staff Choice Award for Breakthrough Voice Actor of the Year at 3rd Annual BTVA Anime Dub Awards" but I don't think the award is major enough for notability to hinge on it. Based on all of that I'd agree that its WP:TOOSOON. Opencooper (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I like BTVA, their awards are above the ones given by random anime websites as the VA's really do list them among their career accomplishments. But they're not quite the Annie Awards or Seiyu Awards in prestige. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ENT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 07:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Bailey[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Her work is exclusive to a book series that does never have a separate Wikipedia article, and as of now it seems the major thing possibly notable of her is her death. I'd say we either delete or rename to Death of Helen Bailey, as the person by herself isn't necessarily notable. Rusted AutoParts 05:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note - Not sure I agree with the above comment. Both her life's work and death have received extensive coverage and if that isn't notable then I struggle to see what is. The page is updated and referenced so what's the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MalibuJambo (talk • contribs) 09:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC) — MalibuJambo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note - I strongly disagree with the suggestion to delete this entry. Perhaps the proposer doesn't know the British children's books scene very well, since Helen was (and remains) an incredibly popular author in the important Young Adult field. Her name is widely known, not just by children and young people but by publishers, booksellers, and throughout the book trade. The Bookseller trade journal has been publishing countless tributes to Helen from her peers. She was also well known for her work in the bereavement field, and was highly respected in that area too. She is by no means purely known for the tragic circumstances of her recent death. I would strongly support keeping this article, but it needs revision to reflect her huge contributions in life, rather than dwelling on her death. Fayfran (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC) — Fayfran (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - there is no evidence of notability as an author here. Most refs relating to notability are own web-site or sales sites. The rest are all newspaper reports of her disappearance and death. Whilst it would be nice to think that murders were so unusual that they conferred notability here, regrettably they don't. Thankfully they are quite rare in the UK but Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia and the prospect of having an article for every murder in the Unites States or parts of Africa or the Middle-East would be an impossibility. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please take into account this 2015 Guardian interview, as well as the other material now added to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Completely disagree with the original poster requesting deletion. Helen is a popular author of the Electra Brown series which is much loved by young adults. She had 22 books published. She also made a huge impact to the lives of those suffering bereavement through her book and Planet Grief blog. She would have also have continued to achieve so much more had it not been for her tragic death. I strongly believe that her page should remain to reflect what she contributed in the time she was here. Mistyuk11 (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC) — Mistyuk11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep – Just a very quick search found this interview in British national newspaper The Guardian, which suggests that she was indeed notable before her disappearance. I'll try to add it to the article's references as soon as I get the chance. JezGrove (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've now included The Guardian reference in the article, and have also added Bailey's appearance on BBC Radio 4's Woman’s Hour. (You can hear it here, 27:45 mins in.) JezGrove (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Few of the keep votes have added in new info to the article, but a good bunch of that still stems from her own website, or a website about her. It doesn't enhance her international notability or her bibliography's international notability. Rusted AutoParts 20:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She doesn't have to be "internationally notable" to be a proper subject for Wikipedia. Local topics with RS are fine for inclusion. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note – True, but it didn't take me very long to find both an interview published in an internationally recognised British newspaper and an appearance on a national radio station. There are very many WP articles about individuals which would struggle to demonstrate that level of notability. It may well be that the Helen Bailey article is not globally notable – but it is a very, very long way from being at the top of the list of articles for deletion on those grounds! JezGrove (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rusted AutoParts - I've just clicked on 'Random article': the first two articles I found were the completely unreferenced 2012–13 Princeton Tigers women's ice hockey season (not tagged as such, for what it's worth), and McGillivray Creek (British Columbia), which has a single reference that appears to be out of date and goes nowhere (no tags on that one, either). Given the apparently dire state of so many WP articles, I'm not sure why the Helen Bailey one has been singled out as a priority for deletion? JezGrove (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a heavily involved editor in terms of searching for articles that might not be notable. I frequent [{Deaths in 2016]] and just happened to notice her article. Just basing my decision on prior discussions about the article. Rusted AutoParts 22:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bailey was the subject of a Telegraph obituary which suggests notability. This article is a mess with very poor referencing but that is a matter of editing quality not notability of the subject. MurielMary (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The widespread publicity over her disappearance and death is due to her pre-existing notability - she was notable before she disappeared, not because of her disappearance. Notability is confirmed by the Telegraph obit, which also confirms details of her bio. Will expand article - and my comments here - once my current access problems are resolved. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Now receiving international as well as UK coverage - [11], [12]. The coverage is a consequence of her inherent notability - not the nature of her disappearance or death. See also 2008 interview here and 2015 Guardian interview with her here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I cannot agree with the proposer's rationale. Furthermore, WP:AUTHOR states that the person must have "created" a "well-known work or collective body of work". Ask a certain age group and they will confirm how well-known her work is within that particular age group. As she is a published author, and the subject of many critical reviews of her work in the public domain, I am happy with her level of notability. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I cannot agree with the proposer. Ms Bailey had two different notable sets of 'fans' for her writing - first as a children's author (of which my niece and friends were fans but probably not known by adults without teenage girls in the family) and latterly as the author of both the blog 'Planet Grief' and the subsequent book 'When Bad Things Happen in Good Bikinis'. Numerous articles in the press can be found about both Planet Grief/When Bad things Happen in Good Bikinis' many months before she went missing and brought her to a much wider adult population and as a result of this brought her into the non print world of Radio 4, etc. She also had a successful career in licensing of Snoopy in the UK prior to her husband's death. That she had so many column inches were published before her body was found shows that she played an important part in the world of publishing/authorship. The manner of her disappearance and death is relevant given that her links with online support groups brought her into contact with the man charged with killing her but neither define who Ms Bailey was and her 'right' to have this Wiki page. ^[1] ^[2]Crossaboutdeletion (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC) — Crossaboutdeletion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep there are enough references about her from prior to her death. I'm adding a few new ones to the article that I've found. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely notable enough for an article. She published a well-known series of works that received multiple published reviews. That is prima facia notability per WP:AUTHOR Klaun (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems enough to have a separate article. Everything another was written above--Noel baran (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note - am I the only person who find the timing of this attempt to delete the entry for Ms Bailey's entry not being 'notable' - less than a week after her body was found - as if her family and friends don't have enough to worry about.Crossaboutdeletion (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that would a relevant argument had it not been for the fact that the article was only created after she had disappeared and a man had been charged with her murder. Nobody had seemed to think her notable before those events. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is an absolutely normal and regular occurrence for WP articles to be created soon after a person dies, when biographical details in articles and obituaries start to appear. In this case, the circumstances of her disappearance and death alerted article writers to her already-existing notability and suitability for an article. Nothing untoward about that at all - there are many living people who meet WP's notability criteria but who have not yet had WP articles written about them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly. I was simply responding to an implied criticism that a deletion discussion was perhaps ghoulish. I don't believe that it is ghoulish or that the creation of the article was inappropriate under the circumstances. My view expressed above was that in this case, the standards of notability had not been met. It will be for the closing admin to determine whether that is so or not. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/oct/03/i-was-wearing-a-bikini-when-he-died-the-absurdity-of-it
^ http://planetgrief.com

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Gonzalo Revilla[edit]

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

WP:BLP, with some advertorial overtones, of a person who is notable only as a local media personality in a single midsized media market, and who is referenced only to a single deadlinked article in a local community weekly newspaper. This is not a claim of notability that gives a person automatic inclusion rights on Wikipedia -- if he could be sourced over WP:GNG for it there would be a case for inclusion, but the referencing here fails to accomplish that. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Producers are notoriously difficult to reference to a degree that they pass WP:GNG/WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE, and this 22-year-old is not exception. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing at all coming close for his own independent notability, simply nothing else to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 21:14, 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. There is clear consensus to not keep this as a stand-alone article. Beyond that, opinion is evenly split between an outright delete and redirecting is somewhere. Normally, I would be inclined to go with the redirect, per WP:ATD, but in this case, the most commonly suggested redirect target, Eurasianism#Greater Russia, has already been removed, as WP:SYNTH. So, I'm going to go with the straight delete here. Anybody can recreate this as a redirect, if they can find a reasonable target to redirect it to (with the understanding, of course, that reasonable can be tricky to define, and might have to be defended at XfD). -- RoySmith (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Russia[edit]

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

Wild original research. There is no such concept in Russian culture. 'Velikorossiya' ? - It is something else. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was the one who recreated this page in 2014 and I agree with the above argument. Charles Essie (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As not enough references to meet WP:GNG, and a fair bit of original research which would all need to be removed to keep this article. Omni Flames (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Robofish's suggestion below. I had looked for a suitable destination for a redirect but wasn't able to find one. ~~Delete;~~ as above, fails NOR and GNG. Mattlore (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eurasianism#Greater Russia. This article seems to be entirely original research, but that article has a section on a similar topic which at least is referenced. Robofish (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You failed to notice that this section is exactly same WP:SYNTH. (P.S. and as I checked the authorship, it was actually created in 2009 as merge from this article). There is no Russian movement whose name may be translated as "Greater Russia". You were probably fooled by several references. Yes, there is an idea to restore Russia to the boundary of Russian Empire, but is is not called "Greater Russia". So I am deleting this section just as well. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By simply checking Google news [13] and following the sources, one can see that the term is widely used. I do not know about Russian, but it is widely used in English, and only this matters. May be it should be merged with Great Russia or something else, but this is difficult to decide. My very best wishes (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A cursory review of your link shows that the term "Greater Russia" is used in passing, with no explanation what it actually means. Without reliable sources with scholarly coverage the article will inevitably be original research. If there is no established usage, you even don't know whether the writers speak about the same thing. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Noi it cannot be merger into Great Russia (Velikorossiya), because, as I said, is a concept completely different from what the current article tries to write up. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it seems that the term is used in English (but not in Russian!) specifically to distinguish it as a nationalistic concept different from "Great Russia" (see usage in books [14]). Hence the "keep". My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And significant coverage (which defines the term at least) would be...? - üser:Altenmann >t 06:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much OR and not enough reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to some appropriate article or section, perhaps Eurasianism or Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin. The term pops up again and again as a description of the geopolitical aims attributed to Putin, as a glance at the Google News results shows (e. g. [15]). Even if it's only a political buzzword rather than any coherent set of ideas, it is a likely search term and should lead to something topically appropriate. Sandstein 16:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this is acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 21:15, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Gunsmith[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician whose claims to passing WP:NMUSIC are sourced entirely to social networking platforms, YouTube videos, iTunes and blogs. As always, a musician is not automatically entitled to coverage in Wikipedia just because he exists -- he must be the subject of reliable source coverage which properly verifies an NMUSIC pass, but out of 28 citations here, not even one of them is to a reliable source. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, fails WP:MUSBIO. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:40, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Raggety[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a rapper with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, which is referenced entirely to his own self-published social networking content about himself with not a shred of reliable source coverage shown. Also conflict of interest, as the article was created by an editor whose username corresponds to the article subject's claimed real name. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, fails WP:MUSBIO. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:36, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ane Amour[edit]

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

Non-notable fashion label. Source in article is a 2 minute video from a minor news TV station superficially covering the business, and I couldn't find any other really reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 04:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NY1 is a local news channel in New York City, the most populous city in the USA, as such it is not a minor news TV station. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcmanam (talk • contribs) 04:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ane Amour has partnered with the charity Surf Rider. I believable a notable fashion line would be one that does charitable work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:EE42:7400:553E:7A19:50E:CC47 (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 00:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 00:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 00:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No hits on Google News, which is not a good sign - not even tabloid type/PR coverage. The only significant hits I'm seeing for Iyala Anne are for a yoga instructor, the same person apparently. The designer's press page shows really very little coverage - she only started in 2016! So basically this is WP:TOOSOON at best, especially as there is so little coverage. Basically, this is someone who's only just started out as a fashion designer, who dabbled a bit in yoga, who has had a few mentions, but nothing really significant. We know that she exists, we know what she does, but it's far too soon to demonstrate that she is notable. Mabalu (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I got curious as to why someone who hadn't been active since 2010 suddenly popped up solely to create an article on a random NY fashion designer who'd only just started up, and did some basic Googling. Within a few minutes, it was made clear that the person associated with the user ID Dmcmanamon is a friend of Iyala Anne, and is promoting and plugging her - which is laudable, but Wikipedia is not for writing articles about your friends' new start-ups or latest ventures. If Ane Amour/Iyala Anne has lasted a few years and is receiving ongoing coverage on her in reliable sources, then she would be valid for an article, but at this point, it is too soon, and there does appear to be an element of conflict of interest. Mabalu (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I basically consider this A7 and G11 material, nothing coming close for convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:15, 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 nomination withdrawn. NasssaNser 02:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Off Then (film)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NF, can't be attributed to reliable sources. NasssaNser 04:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The film released in Germany as a wide release. And also the book was top on Best Seller list. Devid Striesow, male lead awarded to the Best German Actor. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:NF #1 (widely distributed, full-length reviews in national media by nationally known critics) & #3 (received major award). Further, the underlying book is an enormous bestseller and has been translated into several languages. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep re: reasoning provided by Michael Bednarek and references on page.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michael Bednarek's reasoning. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:55, 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 no consensus. After three relists, consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 16:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Sharma[edit]

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

This article was created by a blocked paid editor without disclosing his paid edits and in violation of wikipedia terms of service. Overtime, the article was turned into a PR piece and added with PR sources which have been eventually removed. After pruning of the article for ineligible content by experienced editors, it is left with no sources, a few self publications and a one line intro. Obviously the article does not meet up the notability criteria and should be deleted. All searches that come up on google are PR pieces, self published books and other promotional material. The few news reports that come up are bare mentions or quotations without indepth coverage of subject. As far as this article will exist, editors and administrators will be wasting their time protecting an ineligible article from promotion attempts. The purpose of this article appears to make the name come up on top on google search to promote the subject which is not an allowed use of wikipedia.

Delete I nominate the article for deletion in accordance with wikipedia policies. Drewziii (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable writer and speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although there was definitely a problem with PR spin, the reality here is actually that reliable source coverage about him does exist — the issue is that because most of his books were published in the 2000s rather than the 2010s, that coverage will be located in archival media databases like ProQuest or HighBeam or EBSCOhost rather than sitting out in the open on Google News. Indeed, on a ProQuest "Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies" search, I get 190 hits on him dating all the way back to 1995 — and that's before he even published The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari, which was an extremely successful book (actually one of the best-selling titles in the entire history of self-help books) that would get him over WP:AUTHOR all by itself even if it was the only book he'd ever published. I'm not even a fan of the self-help genre, and I've heard of it. So the notability and sourceability are there, and the article just isn't showing them properly. Keep and I'll take a stab at reffing it up when I get a chance. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because his notability can not be inherited from his books - WP:INHERIT. His books may be notable for which they have (can have) their own Wikipedia articles but for the person to be confirmed notable, his BLP article will need to be separately eligible for Wikipedia. Most sources found on internet are about his books, not him, including much PR sources. Historical references are also to his books or years of PR efforts. This article was from scratch a PR piece. It should be deleted because it is a BLP without reliable sources and far from being properly repaired without COI. Later on if Bearcat or a regular Wikipedia editor finds enough sources to consider it WP:GNG, it can be recreated without WP:COI. --58.65.144.222 (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather blatant misreading of WP:NOTINHERITED. I didn't say that he gets a notability freebie just because his books exist; I said that he gets over WP:AUTHOR because the books have made him the subject of enough media coverage to satisfy that notability guideline. And you've got to give people a chance to actually do the work they've promised; I had some time today, and now have added nine citations to this article just out of one media database — and I can guarantee that other coverage will exist in other databases that I may not have personal access to as well. As I already noted, the guy was more prominent in the late 1990s and early 2000s than he is today, so the fact that recent coverage may not be particularly strong on Google does not mean that reliable source coverage of him fails to exist — Wikipedia does not have a requirement that the coverage be current or freely accessible on Google, but merely a requirement that it be cited, which I've now done. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The IP should have realized that you were adding sources to this article, but I think the general concern is correct. Even after your great efforts, the page has a few references that do also depend alot on his books. I do not have a personal opinion on the individual but given the PR efforts that have been made on this article alone and randomly checking many sources online, I am still convinced that most sources are PR which can not be added to his article on wikipedia. If this article is kept, writing his biography factually and keeping PR in check is the right thing to do but as of yet I agree with the IP and John Pack Lambert and I am still inclined towards delete. Drewziii (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Bearcat argues above, this person seems to have had a significant impact in his particular area of work; witness his works here (not the pieces about optics, just the "leadership" stuff); and also the terms used to describe him in these [16] [17] [18] [19]. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I presume Bearcat has been following through with his promise to improve the article, because I see cited reliable references now. So, obviously keep. Fieari (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bearcat's argument is persuasive. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:09, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Yadav (civil servant)[edit]

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

Delete. One among the lakhs of district magistrates in India. Fails WP:BIO Uncletomwood (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor official. Not an elected official and not a particularly high ranking or prominent person. Civil servants should only exceptionally be notable. MLA (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:11, 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 01:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find evidence that the subject passes WP:BIO. The sources cited (which to me appear to be pretty comprehensive) don't give significant coverage to the subject. While it is possible for very senior civil servants to be notable, the job doesn't exactly lend itself to media coverage and lower ranking ones are far less prominent. Hut 8.5 21:48, 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. JohnCD (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yassin Fortune[edit]

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

Article was prodded with rationale: "Subject is a young footballer who has not yet played in a fully professional league or at senior international level, so fails the sport-specific notability guideline, and about whom there's no evidence of enough non-routine independent significant coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline." PROD removed by creator, with edit summary "May fail WP:NFOOTY but surely does not fail WP:BIO. There has been much media hype circling around this player and has a professional contract with Arsenal for the third year." I'd suggest that the reports of Arsenal reportedly beating Man Utd to signing the player on scholarship terms are just that: media hype, with nowhere near enough solid content to pass WP:BIO. Struway2 (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, No significant coverage, no professional appearances. Just another young talent with a few inches in the sports papers from journalists with nothing better to do. Giant Snowman 08:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not played in a fully-professional league and has not played senior international or Olympic football. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant independent coverage. Seven of the sources are largely the same thing - coverage of Arsenal signing Fortune before Man U - which all fall under the definition of routine coverage. Comparing oneself to two notable footballers does not make oneself notable, and while the pages from the French Football Federation can be used to verify facts, they cannot be used to establish notability due to the lack of independence. Subject therefore also falls well short of passing WP:BIO despite the assertion by the article's creator. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only has routine transfer coverage and fails WP:NFOOTY Seasider91 (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To say he fails WP:BIO is a fallacy. He has over 50+ articles written specifically for him (granted that some may be repetitive of his signing) and has a guaranteed professional contract in his third year for Arsenal. So I'll come back when he plays his first couple of seconds in a professional match. Makes sense. So LeBron James was not notable in high school? (Yes, different sport I know) There was over 1000 articles during that time on him. Hype is significant coverage. Yes perhaps a couple of bored reporters, however I am not offering my opinion. Savvyjack23 (talk) 18:40, 3 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. Article essentially claims notability for the individual as a footballer when he hasn't actually played football at a significant level. Fenix down (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - included citations and a google news search indicate the article meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, which trumps the "sport-specific notability guideline".Hmlarson (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 11:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:12, 19 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) 16:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep includes various references from well-known secondary sources thus passing WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 18:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The GNG requires rather more than "various references" from reliable sources. It needs significant coverage from those sources, and not the sort of routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. That isn't in evidence. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 23:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still not confirmed as independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 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 redirect restored by article creator. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 18:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trapezoid height[edit]

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

Not notable. Only sourced to some blog, but even if it were properly sourced the “trapezoid height“ or any particular derivation of it is not independently notable. Should redirect to Trapezoid, e.g. to Trapezoid#Midsegment and height. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What under what criterion of notability does this fail? You are not being specific. It should not redirect to Trapezoid#Midsegment and height because there the statement of the fact is given without proof. Please give your argument with respect to the definition. Under what definition is a forum about math an invalid source? In fact, by your argument the image of a visual proof of the Pythagorean theorem uploaded by you and linked through your talk page is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.219.24 (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could direct you to WP:OTHERSTUFF but actually Pythagoras's theorem is a good example. Despite the theorem being so important that some of its proofs are well known and named, such as Euclid's proof, none of them has their own article. Trapezoid is not so long that it needs breaking up into separate articles, and the height of the trapezoid is adequately covered at Trapezoid#Midsegment and height.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement amounts to Pythagoras's theorem is important so it deserves several proofs in an encyclopedia, whereas the height of a trapezoid is not important so it can be stated without proof. This is not an argument but your personal opinion. Furthermore, editors from trapezoid suggested and endorsed the creation of a separate page for the proof rather than having the proof in that page; you can see this on the talk page for trapezoid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.219.24 (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nominator; a separate article is not justified. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
note the article creator Darkhipo has restored the redirect. I assume they are the same person as the IPs above, in which case this is probably a snow close/CSD A7.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (that should be Darkhipo - corrected)--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:11, 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. Michig (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Pete[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:ARTIST. I don't see much out there about him, and the two galleries specified where he exhibited are redlinked. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I didn't find anything that may satisfy WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My searches are finding nothing which could meet any of the WP:ARTIST notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can tell the subject doesn't meet any of the four points listed at WP:CREATIVE. Omni Flames (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The external link to Genussmittel in Soller (archive) gives something like a review, but that appears to be the extent of the critical reception of his work. The link to his homepage is dead. The German and French wikipedia both have an article about him, the French with even fewer sources than the English version. The German article has a long listing of exhibitions, none of which have taken place in notable galleries. Fails WP:ARTIST. Mduvekot (talk) 13:54, 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 speedy delete as a hoax/deliberate mischief. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Shimmering Sword Part I[edit]

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

No references found for this supposed film or the equally dubious series. This is the only credit from the article's creator, and it appears to be an April Fool's joke (for example, the original version also included a misleading wikilink that actually logged users out of Wikipedia). In any case, the apparent hoax fails WP:V. Calamondin12 (talk) 02:16, 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 Moved to Draft:Particle teleportation. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Particle teleportation[edit]

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

This article has only one reference, a fringe paper by one scientist, and there is no evidence that this concept has been given serious discussion by other scientists. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify A Google Scholar search shows that it might be a notable topic. This article even contains an AFC template which strongly suggests it is actually a misplaced draft meant for AFC review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - moved to draft by 333-blue (ping) already. I cannot make any sense of the AfC notices with the maze that the page histories have become.

In any case, while the article is borderline promotional of a single paper, the subject exists and may deserve an article. Notice also that Physical Review E is hardly fringe, even though quantum physics is not in its main scope. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:18, 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 speedy delete as a hoax. I guess I'll move this to the museum just because it lasted so long. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheer Perfection[edit]

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

No references exist anywhere online for this supposed HBO miniseries. The article was created by an IP in 2005, and the only other contribution from this user was an edit to HBO's page adding this entry and the well-known John Adams (miniseries) to its list of programming. Upcoming programming on a major channel like HBO typically draws fairly broad coverage, with announcements about the cast and other details released many months before the show makes its on-air premiere; the absence of any such material suggests that HBO never worked on this show at all or abandoned the project at an extremely early stage in its development. This could conceivably be an intentional hoax (in which case it would be the longest-lived hoax yet found on Wikipedia), but even if that isn't the case, the article fails WP:V. Calamondin12 (talk) 02:02, 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. Michig (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rank of Commercial-Business Passenger airplanes manufacturer Companies By Production Approx Passenger Capacity Range[edit]

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

We only seem to have massive lists like List of aircraft manufacturers B-C, which isn't sortable. This new list is, but I can't help but think "Commercial-Business Passenger airplanes manufacturer Companies By Production Approx Passenger Capacity Range" is a fairly incomprehensible and WP:Indiscriminate concept for a standalone list. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't indiscriminate, it's a non-encyclopedic cross categorization, or OVERLY discriminate, in other words. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I PRODded this just a few minutes before the AfD was opened, with the comment "Incoherent and arbitrary unreferenced comparison list with no clear purpose." Someone has since shovelled some incoherent text into the Lead, presumably to give some indication of purpose, but it all remains rather pointless. There isn't even the kernel of an encyclopaedia article in this. I'd better stop before I start sounding rude. YSSYguy (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally incomprehensible article. If it were translated into English it would be non-encyclopedic. - Ahunt (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Ahunt. Whatever it's actual point, in can be, and probably is, better covered elsewhere, and in intelligible English. - BilCat (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a poorly sourced list filled with WP:OR and non-encyclopedic. Omni Flames (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:51, 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.

[1] ttps://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/oct/03/i-was-wearing-a-bikini-when-he-died-the-absurdity-of-it

[2] ttp://planetgrief.com

[1]

[2]