Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 July	22 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 delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Powers[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Even fictional characters must be shown to be notable. I could find no evidence that this is the case for Mr. Powers. Simply redirecting doesn't help, as Nancy Drew#Video games does not include a section on characters. ubiquity (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following Nancy Drew-related pages because they also fail WP:GNG:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to look through all of them, but this seems like an ideal place to merge all into a newly-created List of minor Nancy Drew characters. I note that many of these seem to be from books, rather than video games, but again, I haven't read through everything in detail. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This has already been done for The Hardy Boys in List of The Hardy Boys characters and for Tom Swift in List of Tom Swift characters. I'm not sure I understand why Nancy Drew deserves special treatment here except for characters (such as possibly Bess Marvin) whose notability on their own merit can be solidly demonstrated. ubiquity (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Not opposed to a merge, theoretically, but that would require some indication that the "minor Nancy Drew characters" have some notability unto themselves, with articles about them individually or as a group but not enough to warrant separate articles. As far as I can tell, these pages are just Wikia-style repositories of in-universe primary sourced info, so they should be either transwikied to Wikia or just outright deleted. czar 17:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without proper sources to establish notability, there is no need for excessive plot information. Any pages where they are mentioned can likely cover all relevant details without needing for them to be merged anywhere. TTN (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reformulate this AFD on a character-by-character basis. Alternately, Keep Bess Marvin, create List of minor Nancy Drew characters that includes Hannah Gruen and may or may not include others on the list. But, at a minimum, please do separate AFDs for Bess Marvin and Hannah Gruen, because if anyone who knows anything about the issue is a Wikipedian who skims through the AFD lists, shoehorning these far-more-notable characters in under the principal title of a nobody without a crossreference is going to lead to the wrong result. Combining all these articles into one AFD is cumbersome at best, because the characters, and their coverage, aren't remotely comparable. While I agree some of these characters are crufty, please let me put this into a potentially more familiar pop-culture universe: Combining these articles in one AFD is like combining a proposed cull of South Park articles to include Dougie, Butters Stotch, Randy Marsh, and Kenny McCormick in one AFD discussion—and captioning it only with Dougie!. I assure you I know better than to argue that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That is in no way my goal. I'm just trying to give a sense of perspective between the relative indispensability of female second lead Bess Marvin, clearly notable supporting character Hannah Gruen (no less so than Stan's dad in SP), and unheard-of "one[-]time" computer game character Vivian Burnett Whitmore (seriously, who?).

All that being said, I'm going to play the gender card here, for the record if nothing else: if there were more women editing Wikipedia this would never have happened, because plenty of women know the gosh-darned difference between arguable Riot Grrrl subcultural icon Bess Marvin (whose article has gained a number of citations in the past week, I note) and some computer game character who admittedly has nothing to do with anything. This is in NO way intended to be a slight on the editor raising the AFD discussion because that's what a community is for. The articles weren't great and Ubiquity was within rights to call shenanigans; we should all feel comfortable nominating cruft for deletion. It's a slight on the fact that nobody in the world until this week has added citations to establish the notability of at least the character on this list who is a relatively universally known figure in the past and present audience of American girl-focused children's literature, and a slight on the fact that a random 45-year-old lady who's working on a deadline on a real-world project over a holiday weekend is the only person here ranting and raving against across-the-board deletion, because this "fandom" is almost entirely female, when a male-based fandom would have a discussion going out the door and getting written up on blogs for its vehemence. This compares to the Wedding dress of Kate Middleton issue: a significant group of humans find this thoroughly notable, but they're not on Wikipedia to rant about it for whatever reason even though they will be sad if the article isn't there when they go looking for it.

Many thanks to relister Northamerica1000 for not closing this before I had a chance to see it. I will see what I can do to establish notability for, at best, Bess Marvin outside fancruftland, because it exists; I just need to find a couple of hours in the JDL-universe to be able to prove it. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the case for separate articles (or AfDs for that matter) based on the added sources, if that's all that exists. There's nothing to stop someone from redirecting Bess Marvin to a place where she is covered (if one exists), but right now there is a difference between being important to a series and/or subculture and having enough significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) to warrant a separate article. czar 00:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think we need different AfDs for some of these pages, because the AfD process is consensus-based, not vote-based. If the consensus is to allow some of the pages to stay, and others to be merged into a list, that's fine. The consensus doesn't have to be delete-all or keep-all. I would be happy to see any of these pages kept if their subjects can be shown to be notable. I initially only nominated pages with no references at all (which is why Carson Drew didn't make my cut), and I see that a number of references have been added to some of the articles since then. I did not withdraw these pages from nomination because I'd like to see some consensus that the references are enough to establish notability, but it seems like this is the case with Bess Marvin.

I'm not sure gender has anything to do with this. I'm a guy, but I read all the Nancy Drew books when I was a kid, and I can distinguish between the importance of someone like Bess Marvin, and someone like Dwayne Powers. But the fact is that none of the nominated articles had any references at the time of their nomination, and this is an encyclopedia, not a fan-wiki. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the way we keep that from happening is by insisting on notability, as demonstrated by appropriate sources. These have still not been provided for the bulk of the nominated articles. ubiquity (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant WP:IINFO, but that doesn't really matter, because WP:IINFO lists four specific types of indiscriminate info, and this isn't one of them. In fact, anything that's ever referred to as "*cruft" by any editor is actually more likely to be too discriminate (i.e., bordering on the trivial), rather than indiscriminate. An indiscriminate list might be something like "cat, pencil, travel trailer, Spiro Agnew". Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and then Redirect however if as needed, as there's still nothing actually convincing and there's not going to be, considering they're simply characters. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All: I find the nom's argument persuasive, and agree that Wikipedia is not the NancyDrewWiki. Beyond that, I have no idea why this was relisted twice, and relisting it a third time's just absurd; there has been a clear consensus to delete, and only one dissenting voice. (As far as that goes, despite Julietdeltalima's passionate dissent and assertion that not only could the articles she advocates keeping can be sourced, but she would go ahead and do that, the aforementioned articles haven't been touched since her post, a span of time during which she's made about seven hundred edits.) Ravenswing 03:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, or merge all, if we must. Each is not notable, but collectively they might be. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Werleman[edit]

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

I don't see that Werleman meets our standards of notability. The independent sources cited in the article are of very low quality, partly blogs, and even the best sound more like opinion pieces than news articles. Huon (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have been unable to find reviews from the mainstream press, gsearch does, however, bring up some reviews that may assist notability(?):- in CounterPunch - "Both books (Athiest Threat and one by another author) are essential reading for anyone seeking to better understand the waywardness of a large chunk of the atheist movement."[1], Minnesota Atheists - "Book Review: God Hates You, Hate Him Back - Werleman definitely gets an 'A' for idea ... Unfortunately, his follow-through isn't as good."[2], in Oxford University Press blog - "We seem to be witnessing a broad reaction against the New Atheism movement by atheists ... C.J. Werleman, in The New Atheist Threat: The Dangerous Rise of Secular Extremists, himself formerly a militant atheist, describes the New Atheists’ uncritical devotion to science, their childish understanding of religion, their extreme Islamophobia, and intolerance of cultural diversity."[3]. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this subject fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is a prolific writer, problem is that I can't find anything that is about him in RS publications - he is mentioned in a few blogs. And the books he writes don't seem to get reviewed in significant publications, although review mentioned above by Coolabahapple [4] in the small, fringe/extremist publication CounterPunch does explain who he is "formerly a speaker in demand on the atheist conference circuit, Werleman was for a time a popular figure within the atheist movement." overall, however, there does not seem to be enough sourcing to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not enough library listings and there's essentially nothing else better from there. SwisterTwister talk 19:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Željko Loparić[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Tagged for notability since June 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he is full professor at the very notable University of Campinas and has an H-index of 21 reported by Google Scholar ([5]), both of which I believe should make him qualify under WP:NACADEMICS. There are articles more fleshed out at pt:Željko Loparić and at hr:Željko Loparić that we can expand from. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only source is a link to his own website. We can not keep articles with such total lack of sourcing. Being a full professor anywhere is not enough to meet the requirements for notability of academics. The level of citations is not high enough to pass notability guidelines 1 for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By what standard is the level of citations not high enough? Don't forget we make allowance for different citation rates in different subjects. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. This entry for him in a Croatian encyclopedia appears to be an independent reliable source. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 in the low-cited field of philosophy. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC),[reply]
Keep - as has been noted above, an H-score of 21 for philosophy is pretty good. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to this source (a journal article on the history of logic in Brazil) he played an important role as director of The Centre for Logic, Epistemology and History of Science at Unicamp, founder of two publication series Cadernos de História e Filosofia da Ciência and Kant e-Prints, and one of the founding members of the Brazilian Logic Society. I think that shows he is a leader of his field in his country and, together with the encyclopedia article linked above, should be good enough for WP:GNG regardless of where we set the threshold for citation counts. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri Ehrlich[edit]

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

See WP:Junk Ethanlu121 (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable as a songwriter or in his other endevors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - he has a couple of credits listed at one reliable source, but WP:BLP requires significant coverage in multiple sources. Maybe userfy if somebody is willing to work on this. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 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) 08:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Defending America for Knowledge and Action[edit]

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

WP:BLP magnet of non-notable local organization, all sources are pretty much localized and not significant per "WP:GNG" Prevan (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but change tense It looks like this organization is defunct. Their web site has a date of 2009, and their last call to action ("Write President Bush...") is from 2003. News hits are from years 2003 to 2009; not finding anything since then. But they did, at one time, get news coverage. I suggest modifying the article to indicate that the organization is no longer active, although the web site lives on. John Nagle (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient coverage beyond a few relatively fringe or partisan news sites. Fails the second criterion of WP:CLUB. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If it hasn't received significant coverage from reliable sources beyond the San Francisco area, then it doesn't meet CLUB. Ravenswing 03:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non-notable defunct organisation. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a former, regional college student group. It's unlikely that this article could be improved beyond what should be a tiny stub. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neil McCartney[edit]

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

The subject does not seem to meet notability criteria and reads like a LinkedIn page Comicmuse (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not really assert notability for anything, although he seems to be a very productive and helpful person.Borock (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Taking the various aspects of the subject's biography in turn:

Journalism - the subject has:

written brief news articles on some respected sites (e.g. The Guardian)
edited a few publications (not themselves considered notable enough to possess articles of their own) back in the 90's
served on boards/panels of a handful of small organisations

This seems to indicate an industry practitioner, but not an individual of note.

Consultancy - The subject is:

managing director of a consultancy firm (again not deemed notable enough for its own article)
this firm has some well known clients (but this assertion is entirely unsourced)

This again indicates an industry practitioner.

Production -

The subject has been attached to a reasonable list of film projects
None of the films themselves seem particularly notable (again, they have no pages of their own)
And none of the sources indicate that Mr McCartney's involvement with those projects was particularly significant

Again: a minor industry practitioner.

Charity -

Similarly, the page establishes that Mr McCartney is attached in various ways to certain minor charities
The bulk of the section relates to his involvement with the IFT, describing projects it has done, not Mr McCartney himself.
The article for the IFT is little more than a stub, which seems to verge on reading like a press release. I am inclined to query its own notability.
The IFT projects themselves all seem to be on a fairly small scale, and not the subject of particular coverage or note either within the industry or the public at large

Again: a minor industry practitioner.

Conclusions - Coverage in the linked sources is largely superficial. Either Mr McCartney is the author of brief news articles linked as primary sources, or he is mentioned in passing by the secondary sources as being linked in some way to various more notable things. Rarely is there any coverage of Mr McCartney himself, and only then on less reliable websites. Given all the above he does not seem to meet WP:BIO:

Coverage is not substantial, and is often trivial
His contributions to various sectors seem confined to largely unknown, non-notable, or minor projects
He is not widely cited or referred to by industry peers
He has originated no new concept, theory or technique
He has possibly established the existence of a "body of work", but the extent of his contribution to it is unclear, and there is no indication that said body of work is itself notable

Comicmuse (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have just gone through the article and deleted:

Unsourced assertions
Assertions with sources that did not justify the claim being made (e.g. a claim that Mr McCartney was a Professor at a University, with a link to the University page that made no mention of him)
Assertions with dead links
Irrelevant detail about organisations Mr McCartney is associated with, not pertinent to a page about Mr McCartney himself

Some of the comments above now refer to sections that no longer exist, given that the assertions contained therein were not substantiated. Comicmuse (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The volume of references in the journalism section arouse suspicion - it should not be necessary to substantiate notability in this way with so many references. It would seem to be a (relatively) long list of very minor contributions rather than anything actually of note. Although I have not checked every reference in the section, every one I check fell into two categories:
- Expired links: The link is to the home of a website, or to the home of a subsection. As such, it provides no actual evidence to support the article. The lack of a permanent webpage for these references suggests a non-notable contribution in each case.
- Very Basic Contributions: In many of the references the contribution is merely a short paragraph quote, attributed to McCartney. This doesn't demonstrate any association with the news agencies in question, merely that he had occasionally provided comment.

I have not commented on the other sections, but there certainly seems to be insufficient evidence to deem him notable as a journalist. Seeinggreen (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this surely reads like a LinkedIn page and the "Charity" section is way over the top. However, between the number of films he has had a role in producing, along with his writing credits, this is borderline WP:Artist. This page should be substantially cut to bare bones if kept. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 11:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does not meet the criteria for WP:FILMMAKER / WP:JOURNALIST:

1. "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" - No evidence for this

2. "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." - No evidence for this

3. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I see little evidence that this body of work is well-known or has been the subject of independent works. The references are for the most part simply database entries.

4. "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." - This is the main debatable point. Yes, the films have won awards, but I feel this criteria for notability is inappropriate for a producer who is part of a far wider team responsible for the success of the work. OddElly311 (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. number of films is not relevant to notability --significance of films is. The anlaysis by the nom. seems correct. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bhattarai Danda#Education. Closed as redirect per usual procedure for non notable primary schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Gandaki Primary School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Miller (artist)[edit]

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

See WP:NOTESSAY Ethanlu121 (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep notable...Modernist (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - no valid reason for deletion given. Subject is obviously notable per WP:BIO and the article is obviously not original research. Not sure what the nominator is doing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG being a key figure in Fluxus, numerous references included in article attest to this. I can, however, understand the concerns of the nom as large parts of the article are unreferenced, especially relating to exhibitions ie. "Larry Miller's genetics work have been seen in numerous exhibitions including ... (6 exhibitions are then listed all unreferenced), and the exhibition section that lists over 20 exhibitions and numerous countries where is work has appeared only has 1 reference. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I added links to exhibitions listed on subjects own website to answer Coolabahapple's objections. If this article is to be kept, please remove the box at the top of the page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iochone (talk • contribs) 18:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Iochone, it was an observation rather than an "objection";), also please see WP:SPS. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent observations, Coolabahapple. I added new outside links. Thanks. Isabel Ochone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iochone (talk • contribs) 13:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Iochone, thanks for improvements to the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:05, 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. Sandstein 07:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Party presidential primaries, 2020[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON, no compelling reason for this article to exist so prematurely. The 2020 primaries have not even been scheduled yet. The page currently consists entirely of listings of speculative candidates, lists that will become effectively obsolete in the event that Trump is elected (given the likely scenario that he will seek re-election in 2020). Given that there is not yet significant information/coverage of the actual primary elections, this is (at the present time) a WP:GNG fail. Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No need for this article to exist yet. Wait until significant reliable information about the 2020 primaries becomes available.--JayJasper (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL Prevan (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL.--NextUSprez (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL issues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, waaaayyy WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete - Obvious crystal ballery... Carrite (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. In theory, the New York primary could be moot if their candidate comes in third in the 2018 New York election for Governor, and the party loses its second-place ballot position for 2020. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 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 Deleted. Hoax based on content from Rahat Indori. Creator blocked as a suspected sock. utcursch | talk 22:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Pratapgarhi (Poet)[edit]

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

The subject of this biography, created by an indefinitely blocked sock account, does not appear to meet notability criteria outlined in WP:BIO. Evaluating the references I find that the following: 1) the Twocircle.net reference is a local news story that merely includes the subject in a single sentence among a list of others, 2) second reference is a dead link, but appears to have been just an alumni directory listing, 3) third reference does not mention the subject, and 4) subject's own webpage. It boils down to no independent sources supporting notability of the subject. Deli nk (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment from nominator: After a second look, it appears that this article is merely a copy of Rahat Indori with some alterations and deletions. Therefore, I strongly question the accuracy of the article's existing content and this article may fit the criteria for speedy deletion as a hoax. Deli nk (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imran Pratapgarhi from last year. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Clearly meets WP:NGRIDIRON. Has been cleaned up.(non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rocco Moore[edit]

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

See WP:Junk Ethanlu121 (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I wouldn't have called it WP:Junk. Sure, terribly written and badly formatted, but that was easily fixed. At least it had references, and a mention of an unusual achievement. See how you like it now. ubiquity (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SharkSSL[edit]

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

NN software that doesn't assert notability. I trimmed the press releases, negative comparative language ("unlike X"), and non-independent material out of the article, and I can't find a single documented instance of where it is used that isn't cited to the company or a press release. It's been around for a decade, and I just can't find anything independent on it. MSJapan (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MSJapan, I think you are abusing your editing privileges and I'm not sure if it's a direct attack against me personally or this company Real Time Logic, but there seems to be a pattern. What seems extremely odd is that you first delete much of the content and related references that have nothing to do with press release or the company itself and then make an unfounded proposal for deletion. These were the first articles that I tried on Wikipedia and sure I made mistakes, but there appears to be an obvious pattern of attack here.

MSJapan, I clicked on the 'news' link that you inserted above and found another article that I missed. "It's been around for a decade, and I just can't find anything independent on it.", I guess you didn't even bother to look at your own recommendation for where information could be found as this comes up as the last News search recommendation: http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/Federleichte-Diener-1134638.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorisen (talk • contribs) 21:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you delete half the article along with the references and then state there are no references?:

COSIC Cryptography Researchers acknowledge SharkSSL for delivering the fastest, and smallest known implementation for Cortex-M processors.^[1]

The SharkSSL concept is focused on code readability, documentation, and a loosely coupled design to maintain portability. It is designed with hardware crypto engines in mind, using ANSI C and Assembly-optimized big-integer libraries to allow use in embedded devices associated with the Internet of Things (IoT).^[2]

Secure SMQ C Client for publish–subscribe IoT Communications^[3]^[4]

The subject matter is about "embedded software", which if you understand the topic does not take mainstream visibility given it is embedded into a product or device. None of us know what software is used in connected devices that surround us everyday and I found it extremely hard to dig up the materials that I did site in this article. Given the endorsement of COSIC (above) I think we can safely assume that the technology has reached notability. I would appreciate if you would restore the article as I had it and then post it for deletion review rather than the hacked condition it is currently in. Sorisen (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ N. Mouha, B. Mennink, A. Van Herrewege, D. Watanabe, B. Preneel, and I. Verbauwhede, "Chaskey: An Efficient MAC Algorithm for 32-bit Microcontrollers," In Selected Areas in Cryptography, 21st Annual International Workshop, SAC 2014, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 8781, A. Joux, and A. M. Youssef (eds.), Springer-Verlag, pp. 306-323, 2014: "An Efficient MAC Algorithm for 32-bit Microcontrollers", 2014
^ Connected World, Balancing Device Security and Design Cost, November 2014
^ EE Journal, Asserting Machine Control in the IoT, August 2015
^ EE Journal, All About Messaging Protocols, April 2015

Because, of those sources you've provided, the tech paper is about the Chaskey algorithm, and has no particular reference to SharkSSL except for one mention on page 6 as an opinion, in an experimental context as to how they benchmarked.

Direct Quote: "We compare the results for our Chaskey implementation with what is, to the best of our knowledge, the fastest available AES implementation for the ARM Cortex-M series: SharkSSL [60, 61]."

Given that in this group are the originating authors of the AES standard I would say that's the highest (expert)'opinion' possible. It was also necessary for them to disclose this as part of an educational purpose. So what you are ::really saying here is that you hold more knowledge about technical relevance than the COSIC researchers given that they used this reference in their foundation of research argumentation?

You have presented it in the article as actual fact true in all cases. So you have misused the source. You also seem to have a hard time differentiating the product from the company. The Connected World material you cite is the entire extent of the material on SharkSSL in that article, and is again presented as "Realtime says..." - that is the opinion of the company presented as such, and is not fact independent of the company. It fails WP:RS.

The article is about "Balancing Device Security and Design Cost" and why would you propose that they honed in on something of non-relative importance such as your call out on SharkSSL as a technology? The entirety of that article is ::not Realtime says..., but nice spin attack to eliminate any notable references that would independently single out this technology.

Shark SSL is not mentioned in either EE Journal article, because those articles talk about protocols in general. This is an article about the particular software, not the protocol underlying it, and you cannot inherit notability from articles which do not mention the specific product. MSJapan (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the entire feature section which calls out SMQ as a (feature) of SharkSSL. The SMQ PubSub C client SharkMQ is co-mingled code with SSL/TLS even though it wasn't cited in granularity in that particular article, but you ::would already know that if you bothered to read the manual and understand the technology.

The reference and entirety of how it was written sites the technology and has nothing to do with the company.

In summary I think it's clear that you are spending an absorbent amount of time to focus in either on my articles or attack anything that has to do with this company. I would again request that you restore the article to it's original condition and let other non-bias editors contribute their thoughts to the material without the targeted <snip> appearance it is currently in. I would recommend that others review the now deleted articles Barracuda Application Server and Barracuda Web Server that you promoted for speedy deletion, along with the attacking comments that you have given throughout against me (that were false) and even taunting messages to my own talk page. Wouldn't that seem like a fair gesture? Sorisen (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I'll point out here that you never responded to the discussion on WP:COIN [6] here in a satisfactory manner, and you have admitted to a relationship with the company, so you do indeed have a conflict of interest. You have not, however, made a case for why either the company or the product is notable. You have also never addressed how anything you have edited has ever met with policy. You have been told repeatedly that press releases are not reliable sources, and that that is not open to discussion. You have been told that trivial mentions of products are not significant coverage, and this is also not up for discussion. What you are doing is what most promotional editors do - take anything that has the company's name on it and call it a "source", without respect for the policies and procedures of the encyclopedia. You have only ever edited material relating to Real Time Logic and its products. Instead of asking me why I seem to have a focus on them, I think you need to disclose why you have a focus on them. MSJapan (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to you on the pages you on the Barracuda Application Server/Barracuda Web Server pages that you had deleted and maybe I didn't add enough of the SAME answers in the COIN section, that you closed, so I cant edit - regardless. (Despite another editor suggesting more time.) I've been looking at WP:HA and other areas to get help, but I'm a novice and I have less that 6 months experience. Arguing with you is not enjoyable and pointless. It's sickening to see the time I spent just deleted and twisted with negativity and nothing positive whatsoever on how I could make anything better. Yes 'read the rules...' Any comment I make you twist (like reference Draft for Lua Server Pages, which is not yet completed and shows I was extending my writing in same relevant area with no product or COI pertaining to Realtime. Here you said it doesn't count because I didn't finish it and no edit in a couple months and I had them listed as a user of LSP technology. No I never admitted to a relationship. I asked for license permission to use images I found on google to adhere to the creative commons requirement. I asked them to read my article to insure technical accuracy and you turned it into "they wrote it together" and questioning my technical capacity for the subject matter. Sorisen (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, here's an "unbiased" editor, such as Sorisen demands, and I find his arguments unpersuasive. He would be better served adding reliable sources conferring the significant coverage about the subject WP:GNG requires to the article, devoid of promotional/press release content explicitly debarred by the relevant guidelines, instead of mudslinging and ad hominem attacks, a standard tactic of editors lacking substantive arguments. (Honestly, does anyone glare at his terminal and think, "I have found a random editor, and despite knowing nothing about him and never having had dealings with him before, I somehow must hate him and wish him ill! Death to his articles!") I could find no such sources myself. Ravenswing 03:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More sources that show independent coverage on SharkSSL:

http://www.edn.com/electronics-products/other/4376590/SharkSSL-secures-connected-LPC1000-based-devices Korean site: http://kr.aving.net/news/view.php?articleId=1216724 Sorisen (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another press release, and a trade show report about Coressent, one of RTL's business partners? What is so difficult for you to understand about what a press release is? If the article starts with "Real Time Logic has released", isn't very long, and quotes prices, it's a press release, which means the company wrote it and sent it out. That is not an independent source. Anything relating to a business partner of the company is not independent of the company. Apparently the issue is that you do not seem to understand what "independent" means. Independent doesn't mean "it was published somewhere else besides the company's website." Independent means "the company had absolutely nothing to do with it." I really don't know how much clearer this can be stated. MSJapan (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More Sources

Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS139133+27-Jun-2012+BW20120627

Google book search: https://www.google.com/search?q=SharkSSL+reuters&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=UVySV5rqBbHv8wfLqpCgDA&gws_rd=cr#tbm=bks&q=SharkSSL

SharkSSL on High beam: https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-325008927.html

German source: http://www.software4embedded.de/node/17020

French source: http://www.lembarque.com/real-time-logic-cherche-a-mieux-securiser-les-petits-equipements-m2m_000378 Sorisen (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RTC Magazine Editor's Report Tom Williams 'M2M Meets Web Applications Spawning the Internet of Things' Aug 2013 Page 14: https://issuu.com/rtcgroup/docs/rtc1308/12 Sorisen (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

German source: Author Daniel Koch http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/Federleichte-Diener-1134638.html Sorisen (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linuxdevices: by Linuxdevices Staff - http://linuxdevices.linuxgizmos.com/remote-file-manager-showcases-embedded-linux-https-server/

Electronic Products: 'Library implements embedded crypto engine' Author Jim Harrison http://www.electronicproducts.com/Software/Development_Tools_and_Software/Library_implements_embedded_crypto_engine.aspx Sorisen (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters is another press release. Ghits aren't sufficient, and there's only 2. HighBeam is the same press release as Reuters. The German source is a blog. The French source is the same Reuters press release in French. The last article not only includes an interview directly with a developer from the company, it has only passing mention. Linuxdevices is talking about BarracudaDrive, which uses SharkSSL. Electronic products is a press release. Coatracking stuff doesn't make it appropriate. I'm sorry if you're mad because you don't want to follow policies, but that's not my problem. Maybe when you get that job at RTL you're aiming for by being a nice guy for them for nothing, you'll go away. MSJapan (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And just as a matter of full disclosure, the reason I am sounding relatively harsh is because this user has close enough ties to the company to ask them directly for vague licensing letters that he could get off the server but which were not available for public perusal, as evidenced in the COIN discussion, left a barnstar for another editor who was apparently pretty much associated with the company through his edits and actually hadn't edited in almost a year at the point where the barnstar was placed. So no, I don't see a need to treat this as a misunderstanding anymore. MSJapan (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the kind recommendation of the other editor I'm adding additional WP:RS to make it easy for everyone to see that the article meets WP:GNG. I think that the timeline and the numbers of global sources about the subject material help to provide the nobility of SharkSSL.

Reuters is a reliable source, that is independent of the subject, that publishes news on relevant topics. (It is based on press release), however still notable.
Not True: The Highbeam April 2013 reference is not the same is Reuters June 2012 reference, different content, different dates.
Not True: The France reference April 2013 reference is not the same as the Reuters June 2012 reference, different content, different dates.
The fact that the RTC Magazine editor interviewed Wilfred Neilson about the technology IMHO adds to the relevance and is not detracting. What's the difference if a music editor interviews a musician about a song. Does it make the song less relevant? SharkSSL is specifically called out and shown in the diagram for establishing secure M2M connections within embedded application I think it is reasonable to keep this article as showing relevance for the technology.
The Linuxdevices article dated 2005 which shows both in text and diagram use scenario and given it's an older article it shows duration over time for the technology in market acknowledgment via an independent source, to help for notability. (11 Years)
There are (3) books on the Ghit list not (2), so I listed them for you since you looked at them but didn't acknowledge that these are additional materials to provide notability for SharkSSL

Selected Areas in Cryptography -- SAC 2014: 21st International Conference, Montreal, QC, Canada, August 14-15, 2014, Revised Selected Papers p 313 (SharkSSL is used as the best known existing performance reference for cryptographic research.)
Information Security Applications: 14th International Workshop, WISA 2013, Jeju Island, Korea, August 19-21, 2013, Revised Selected Papers p19 (SharkSSL is used as the performance reference for cryptographic research.)
Proceedings of the FISITA 2012 World Automotive Congress: Volume 6: Vehicle Electronics p. 690 (SharkSSL is recognized as an 'embedded' SSL/TLS implementation alternative to OpenSSL)

Note: Given your superior level of expertise I reviewed your pages to get good ideas on how I could improve my source material, but unfortunately found much of the same things that you argue against on this page so I'm literally confused at the hypocritical review of every single resource I site. In addition to the things that are not true...

Your page: Believer (Laura Dawn album)

http://www.allmusic.com/album/believer-mw0000591309

Al Horowitz works for All Music the reviewer is the same company that sells the music.

MySpace.com - Laura Dawn - BROOKLYN, New York - www.myspace.com/laura_dawn

The LauraDawn My Space is totally unbiased right? (Can't help to giggle here.)

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GCkEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=%22laura+dawn%22+believer&source=bl&ots=itw2_p67YP&sig=-kpx7i7CRH6Zm_NMVdTYZccLJdU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDgQ6AEwCTgUahUKEwjisI7cgqTHAhWImBoKHeX2CVo#v=onepage&q=%22laura%20dawn%22%20believer&f=true

Such a tiny mention of something that might be available on this entire page? Is that what you call Relevant and Notible?

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2hEEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=%22laura+dawn%22+believer&source=bl&ots=Ssvh5UDHfi&sig=sHHRoTRYkGs1RJ4PgBdz9j-9z8k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBjgeahUKEwjV1oTkgqTHAhVJ1BoKHcQrBF0#v=onepage&q=%22laura%20dawn%22%20believer&f=false

Again tiny thing that doesn't even talk about the music just some random comment that the artist said - Notable?

Sorry but given your position and the harsh attack I think the above is reasonable for others to see that you are playing double standards here. Sorisen (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but a press release is a press release. I'm glad you brought up Wilfred Nilsen as the CEO, because it sure looks like the CEO of the company used his own name here and "reviewed" your article. How'd you manage to get access to a company CEO right out of the blue, with no connection to the company? I mean, if I called up his office, would I be able to get through to him just like you did? You're not being truthful in the slightest. MSJapan (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More lies, keep them coming, it proves my point. I never brought up Wilfred Nilsen as the CEO and have no idea what you are talking about. Sorisen (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a very clear delete. When evaluating software, we tend to look for high quality WP:RS and over here, there are clearly few. All the supposed RS turn out to be press releases. I also look at popularity of software and it is very clear that this is far from popular. Popular softwares can be identified from wide coverage and numerous discussions online. Clearly there are few here. In addition, the massive COI and disruptive editing is troubling. Delete as fails GNG and also WP:NOTPROMO. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl1942, Sharkssl is an Embedded software TLS implementation. When looking at Comparison of TLS implementations, how are you able to determine any level of popularity? All Embedded Software is 'embedded' in a device the public has no working knowledge about where or what kinds of products it's used in unless this information is disclosed by the manufacturer, which by default in this discussion is named as an unreliable source though all communications to the news and the editorial community. The independent acknowledgement by COSIC in the research documentation I posted above is extremely relevant. Smallest is one of the most important criteria to micro controller systems that lack of memory resources in an embedded device. Why would you believe that the smallest and fastest implementation is not widely used by devices manufactures? The software by reference has an 11 year history and the information about it's relevance has been globally pronounced. This TLS implementation is also proprietary instead of open source, which I believe inherently adds to limited visibility. In my opinion eliminating it diminishes Wikipedia's expertise and reliable coverage regarding the the topic of TLS implementations. Sorisen (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please indent your comments.

Yes, I know exactly what it is. Please stop misleading others by your "independent acknowledgement" by COSIC. I'm not sure if you are familiar with computer science research, but a single line saying "fastest to the best of our efforts" in a single paper by certain researchers who are part of a single research group has absolutely no significance. Multiple research papers to demonstrate this is required.
You said Why would you believe that the smallest and fastest implementation is not widely used by devices manufactures? Because sometimes a free open source alternative is favoured over a proprietary one.
This TLS implementation is also proprietary instead of open source, which I believe inherently adds to limited visibility. Thank you. Wikipedia tends to follow the world. Since you have admitted that it has limited visibility in the real world, it should have limited visibility on Wikipedia as well. I am very clear about a delete now.

Just to clarify, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. If something is not widely used or widely covered in the world, we don't cover it either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the quote: "We compare the results for our Chaskey implementation with what is, to the best of our knowledge, the fastest available AES implementation for the ARM Cortex-M series: SharkSSL [60, 61]." COSIC is not just any "computer science research", they created the AES world standard for encryption by which ALL TLS implementations must comply for support, thus elevating their position of authority on the subject matter. Sorisen (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A research group is not considered an "authority" on a topic (however impeccable their contributions might be). I don't think you understand how the research world works. This is a single paper with a single line about the SharkSSL which is in turn not even the focus of the paper. I would have believed it if the paper had elaborated how they came to the conclusion and showed some evidence - but they haven't. Without evidence it is just a claim. They have not claimed that they have extensively compared it with other implementations. So I unfortunately, do not believe the claim. Btw, looking at the COIN thread, you clearly have a COI here and you are not declaring it. Please remember WP:NOTPROMO --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Going over Sorisen's sources, my take is the same as Lemongirl's. Beyond that, Sorisen would be well served -- that is, presuming he's neither being paid to fight his corner here no matter what, nor just hoping against hope that he can throw up anything, call it a "source" and hope we swallow it -- to read the relevant notability guidelines and get a better handle how things are done on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter, for example, whether a press release is delivered via tablet engraved by God: a press release cannot, explicitly, be used to support the notability of a subject. A Google search of book titles tells us nothing about the sources, their reliability or the degree to which the subject's mentioned: that can't be used to support the notability of a subject. A single paragraph of press release on a German blog site can't be used to support the notability of a subject, and it doesn't become less objectionable when it's on a French blog site instead. A name drop in an article about web servers sure as hell doesn't support the notability of a subject. And so on and so forth.
At this point, I'm just not minded to do any more looking into the links Sorisen is serving up -- which so far seem to be based on the "Pick out the top few G-hits for "SharkSSL" and call those valid sources" principle -- and am pretty comfortable with assuming that any others he might proffer will just prove more smokescreens. If another editor wishes to try, that'd be another matter. Ravenswing 17:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Neither of the two remaining sources appropriately supported the claims they were tied to either, so both the claims and sources have been removed as unsubstantiated. The article, as it stands, is now entirely unsourced product puffery. MSJapan (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. press releases are press releases, no matter where published . The Reuters item is undoubtedly a press release, as shown by the attribution at the end, to the company. Not all press releases are so clearly marked, but Reuters usually does indicate at the bottom, as other reasonably reputable publications. I've learned to always look. Similar for the rest of the sourinb--the nom's analysis is correct as far as I can tell, tho the subject isn't my field. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I've been examining this and everything is either simply not convincing or PR, none of which is keepable. SwisterTwister talk 19:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Boles[edit]

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

Failed PROD. Article on child actress that does not pass WP:NACTOR, contains no secondary sourcing, and which reads as vaguely promotional. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed does not pass WP:NACTOR. Only articles about this person are from soap opera review sites, no notability to this person. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable child actress with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Page's only reference is primary. Meatsgains (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG, no reliable sources found. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NACTOR. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible references can be found except the primary one provided.Split25 (talk) 16:22, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Software[edit]

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

Zero reliable sources to be found; first AfD was somehow closed as "keep" despite complete lack of arguments for that position, and equal support for "delete"—closing admin wasn't on the ball that day. —swpb^T 17:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 17:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 17:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Previous "keep" vote was 10 years ago when WP was less discriminant. No indication online that the company exists or ever existed beyond a startup, and I don't think deeper searching will turn anything up. Jergling (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ah, yes, one of those 2005-6 VfDs where people routinely voted keep without any particular reason beyond they felt like it, and decisions were made on pure headcount. Of course, no one noticed that the article was created by the "owner" of this "company," and tried writing himself into Wikipedia.[7]. Obvious WP:CORP failure is obvious. Ravenswing 04:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When the top sources found are for another former company of the same name - this is hugely non-notable. for (;;) (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable company. Fails ORG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:50, 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 07:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dk yoo[edit]

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

Unsourced article about an individual who claims to be an author, film producer, film director, and expert in 15 different martial arts. However, I can't find supporting evidence in reliable independent sources that he's notable for any of these. Youtube videos, etc. do not show notability. He doesn't meet WP:GNG or any SNG (MANOTE, AUTHOR, ENTERTAINER, etc.).Mdtemp (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ah, yes, another bullshido practitioner. Obvious GNG fail is obvious. Ravenswing 05:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Identical article was speedied and reposted. As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable martial artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage to show WP:GNG is met and no supporting evidence to show any other notability criteria is met. Papaursa (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:51, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoshi Arakaki[edit]

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

No independent evidence he's a notable martial artist. My search found no significant independent coverage and the article's sources are simply a list of his books. He fails both WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. He doesn't inherit notability from his instructors, high rank doesn't show notability, and creating your own style doesn't show notability. Article was apparently created by a student of his style. Nothing in the article shows he meets any notability criteria.Mdtemp (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable martial artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only real claim of notability appears to be that he has authored some karate books, but I see nothing to show he meets WP:AUTHOR. The references consist of a list of his books, which are certainly not independent of him, and fail to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Hartley[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:CREATIVE. for (;;) (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm repeating myself, but here goes: The subject of this article fails WP:ARTIST: The artist is not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Se is not is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Se has not created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, and her work has not been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Her work has not has become a significant monument, has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, has not won significant critical attention, and is not is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. The awards won are minor, non-notable awards. The WP:COI, the WP:ELs in the body and the promotional tone don't help either. Mduvekot (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - locally known, run of the mill artist, who has not even exhibited in Sydney, Australia, much less a real art capital. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mehran University Research Journal of Engineering and Technology[edit]

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

Scholarly journal that doesn't meet our notability guidelines. I don't believe that it qualifies under any of the criteria outlined at WP:NJournals. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. although it is listed in a few databases, none of these are selective in the sense of NJournals. No independent sources, so does not meet GNG either. --Randykitty (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indexing so far too unselective to pass WP:NJournals. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 28 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) 11:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Most[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, and doesn't pass GNG. After removing all non-RS sources and puffery associated therewith, we're left with an award nomination (not a win), and an unreviewed book. I even tried a GBooks search for his name, and got none of the "selected bibliography" items whatsoever. It's worth noting that this article has been heavily revdel'ed twice for copyright and WP:V issues. MSJapan (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable playwright.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 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. Sandstein 07:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sytronik[edit]

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

Non-notable and unsourced BLP. PRODBLP was declined because the article was created before March 2010 but there is only one hit on Google news and it is his discography on a public song-sharing website. GSMR (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Giants[edit]

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

Article subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG. I only found websites that either provide a download link for the game, or provide basic information about the software itself. References and sources providing secondary coverage about the article subject in-depth does not appear to exist at all, and the subject doesn't appear to have significant coverage -- or enough sources to support the creation of an article without the use of original research (required for passing GNG). Notability guidelines aside, the article also appears to be written like an advertisement (although that shouldn't directly assert the notability of the subject). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the author of this page, and this is my first edit on Wikipedia. Considering web notoriety alone, I understand very well that you think it can be deleted. Two things made me think it deserved a page: the fact that the List of chess software page mentions many poor, obscure and/or dead chess software, did make me think Chess Giants (which I use) deserved to be in this list. Also, the community of serious chess players probably less often read or write blogs than other geeks (chess isn't usually a high-tech subject). Also, it isn't written as an advertisement more than the Chess Titans page, of which I explicitly borrowed the style and layout (mostly because I'm unused to wikipedia text formatting). Yet I borrowed terms from this page precisely to avoid my text being misinterpreted as an advertisement, now I feel wrong of having done so. -- Montegozzi 2016-07-14 15:32 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montegozzi (talk • contribs)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 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 15:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete much of this article is a WP:GAMEGUIDE, in addition to the reasons described above. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Champion. for (;;) (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, no coverage in reliable sources (which only seem to mention "chess giants" in the context of the history of chess).—J. M. (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16 Biggest Hits (Dolly Parton album)[edit]

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

While Dolly Parton is certainly notable, this work isn't; it's a run-of-the-mill compilation and best hits album issued by a secodnary publisher (not her regular label). The compilation isn't notable, and neither is this release; the notable songs in the release have their own articles already. Mikeblas (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 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 15:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in any sources. Article refs claim that this has charted in a Billboard 100 but it seems this is not the case. The individual "hit" songs charted during the years they were released - but that does not confer notability to this album. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little to be found written about this beyond mentions of songs on the album. Chasing down the charting claim I found this which doesn't list the album. Gab4gab (talk) 19:06, 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. Sandstein 07:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Aboud[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, promotion The Banner talk 21:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I share your concerns, but the question is if the piece is just badly written and what WP:BEFORE research was done. Can you discuss what you looked at and also if there are any copyvio issues? Montanabw^(talk) 03:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked up the name at Google to see if there was a convincing number of hits to prove her notability (775, effectively 97). Not so. I have deciphered some of the sources, but that pointed more to a woman with a job than an important, famous woman. And last step was checking what articles were linking to it (still none). I came across the article by "Articles With Multiple Dablinks" where it showed up as having links to 12 different disambiguation pages. With the style and tone of the article, I came to my judgement of failing GNG and promo. The Banner talk 07:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like mere PR. And poor PR at that. Engleham (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need to know what to do in order to fix this article? please advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashakhalifa (talk • contribs) 20:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. If 3 companies were the threshold I'd be due an article. for (;;) (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Appears to be purely promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:53, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maryann (rapper)[edit]

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

Perhaps because of the common singular name but my searches simply have found no actually substantial coverage, but that wouldn't be surprising considering the mere links listed here, nothing actually convincing and nothing to also suggest substance for her own notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Search results pull up articles related to the common name "Maryann" or "Baegod" but not the subject specifically, thus lacking notability. Meatsgains (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable singer and songwriter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matej Paulovič[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: G7 for failure to assert a claim of notability ... and even with that, the subject is an amateur youth player of no particular distinction, the article being created by a SPA who edited Wikipedia for all of twenty-six minutes a year and a half ago. Ravenswing 18:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. I believe Ravenswing meant to reference WP:A7 rather than WP:G7, but A7 clearly states that claims of importance have a much lower threshold than claims of notability. I'm not convinced A7 is applicable, but I will not oppose if anyone tags the article with {{db-person}}. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 23:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NHOCKEY and not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I think this issue is moot, I do not think speedy is in order since - although not mentioned in the article - he has represented Slovakia at the WJC, which would seem to be enough of a claim of importance to avoid speedy. Rlendog (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not even a claim that this player is notable. Lepricavark (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NHOCKEY. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:16, 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 Tom Fitzgerald (ice hockey)#Personal. JohnCD (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Fitzgerald (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't inherit notability from his father and doesn't seem to meet either GNG or NHOCKEY.Mdtemp (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom Fitzgerald (ice hockey)#Personal as is typically done for non-notable athletes who are children of notable ones. See, for instance, minor league baseball players Tate Matheny, Tyler Nevin, Mariano Rivera III, and Ryan Ripken, all non-notable athletes whose pages redirect to their notable athlete fathers' pages because it's a plausible enough search term to do so. Smartyllama (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom Fitzgerald (ice hockey)#Personal, which does include a discussion about Ryan. Rlendog (talk) 23:46, 28 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 22:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Mathwick[edit]

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

PROD removed by IP who I assume is the page's creator given the user made the exact same edits back to the page after my series of contributions to clean it up. Subject lacks any significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one RS is not nearly enough to meet the GNG. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Our one RS amounts to "hey, someone is doing some cool writing in our readership area." This is not the general quality of article to suggest the person is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apart from the Emily Hoard article, I find nothing reliable. For now he fails WP:BASIC and WP:NAUTHOR. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete unique name makes searching easy. unfortunately, I could not source it. perhaps it is merely WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:52, 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 speedy delete as spam and copyvio. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Little Sparta (film)[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability whatsoever. The first two references to the Washington Post don't even mention the documentary, but are rather just stories about the documentaries subject matter. A large part of the article appears to be an advertisement for the director's other works.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand this looks like it could be deleted as a copyright violation and as sheer, unambiguous spam. I'll see what I can find source-wise first, but offhand I might just speedy this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That didn't take long - there's little to nothing about this film out there. The director might pass notability guidelines, however that's a might. This looks like it's the latest attempt to create the article, which was also created at Little Sparta (Documentary Film), so I'm salting both locations. I'm also concerned that the current account creator is Salesalkalema evading a block. Either way the editor is getting a block for repeatedly introducing spam to Wikipedia, both for this film and at Mansoor Al Dhaheri. This is not how you should go about trying to get someone and their work into Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OBD Tuner[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Only source is the company's website and no RS available by searching. Prod contested by author. shoy (reactions) 13:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Especially because of the confusing name. "OBD Tuner" could refer to any Chip tuning device, which is probably the kind of confusion the advertiser is going for. Also fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO Jergling (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fairly obscure software program. No chance that this is notable. Concur with above. Created by SPA. MB 01:20, 27 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. Dialectric (talk) 04:12, 28 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honduran folklore[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR reddogsix (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:VAGUEWAVE. Andrew D. (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep Notability not established by this article. A lot of the things listed are not usually considered folklore, maybe folk art in some cases but not the same thing. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the articles Folklore, Folk art, and Folk culture could use some work.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that's WP:JNN + WP:NOEFFORT. It is quite easy to establish notability – just click on one of the search links above to find a source such as this. Andrew D. (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That paper makes me want to visit Honduras. :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I think the author of the article needs to exert some effort first.Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 200 countries in the world, and thousands of ethnic groups. Should WP have an article on the folklore of each? Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is our policy that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover". For this reason, I'd expect us to cover more ground than a paper equivalent such as the three volume Celebrating Latino Folklore: An Encyclopedia of Cultural Traditions. See Folklore by ethnicity‎; Folklore by nationality‎; Folklore by region. Andrew D. (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to keep. Topic is clearly notable, no matter how bad and even irrelevant this article is.Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The folklore of any coutnry is notable. There are always enough sources; some are mentioned above. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly a notable subject. I have to assume the nomination is based on the extreme amount of unsourced content in the article. I'd support aggressive cuts, but I don't think it needs to be deleted. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, article creator has been indef blocked for disruptive editing - WP:MACHINETRANSLATION from spanish wikipedia, this looks like another one, initial edit states this (although no translate tags on article or talkpage), if kept just wondering who is going to fix it? Coolabahapple (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Letter George Washington Mohammed Ben Abdallah 1 Dec 1789[edit]

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

This is not an encyclopedia article. This is a transcription of a historical document with a brief summary of the document's contents. I understand that the page's creator has good intentions by rewriting an 18th century letter that's hard to read in its original form. But Wikipedia is not the right place to do that. The transcription belongs on Wikisource. It does not belong here. Also, the title is totally ungrammatical. If the page is kept, it will have to be moved. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looking around, I can see the letter quoted or mentioned briefly in some sources, but I don't think that any of it constitutes the sort of in-depth, intensive discussion to be considered a notable letter. The title is not pretty, much of the article is simply the text in full, and it contains some unsourced analysis/summary/paraphrasing. This should indeed be on Wikisource, not as its own article. It would be helpful to mention the letter at Morocco–United States relations and Mohammed ben Abdallah, though. Delete. GAB^gab 01:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy until the author has a chance to recreate it on wikisource. It so obviously belongs on s:Author:George Washington I'm almost itching to do it, but that would rob Justanyone of the attribution due for his work. for (;;) (talk) 08:52, 28 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Baggz[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Claimed airplay is not rotation, digital radio tracker is not a good chart. Prod removed without comment or improvement. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning for deletion seems arbitrary and subjective. Lack of coverage and Digital Radio Tracker as good vs. bad seem very non-specific and subjective. How often an artist comes out with new material or updates a page should not be subject to an individual, arbitrary and subjective standard. Appearances with major, well known artists merits keeping this article. No reason listed justifies the removal of an active artist's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArticulusRex (talk • contribs) 00:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find social media of his, download and sales sites, but no non-promotional sources about him. He is a self-recorded artist. Does not meet WP:NMUSIC. LaMona (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What is a self recorded artist? Can someone elaborate how being self recorded or independent discredits notoriety? And wouldn't Asap Ferg, Nipsey Hustle, The Game, 50 cent, Drake, Lil Wayne, Master P, Dr. Dre, Eminem and a multitude of other artist be considered self recorded? Sorry not understanding the statement or phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.140.41.6 (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mike baggz has valid media coverage & has charted on a valid radio chart. DRT Media Base & BDS are the only sources in the industry that can track radio spins. DRT tracks both media base and BDS spins. Hope this information helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:2463:248:68EC:F735:9DBF:7304 (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notible publications, and credible news publications — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.199.84.85 (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Two of the IPs here have made only one edit - this one - so either socking or canvassing must be going on. The IP beginning 209 is ~~the creator of~~an SPA on the article. 209 also removed the AfD notice from the article, but it was reverted. The article has been WP:REFSPAM'd and of the refs that I checked many do not verify the content, others are things like sales and download sites (iTunes, etc.). At this point, if the article is to be retained it needs to revert to an earlier version or TNT. LaMona (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with the previous statement; "Reasoning for deletion seems arbitrary and subjective. Lack of coverage and Digital Radio Tracker as good vs. bad seem very non-specific and subjective. How often an artist comes out with new material or updates a page should not be subject to an individual, arbitrary and subjective standard. Appearances with major, well known artists merits keeping this article. No reason listed justifies the removal of an active artist's page." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.199.84.85 (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is not notable and fails WP:NMUSIC. -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep artist has notable publications, in news, international & entertainment media news, and has been featured on known artists projects. If this page was going to be deleted it would of happened years ago when it was created, reasoning for deletion is not sufficient enough under Wikipedia's guidelines stated in WP:NMUSIC Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swerrrdmedia (talk • contribs) 21:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Swerrrdmedia is the original creator of the article. The article was created in Oct. 2014. Articles often linger for a while on Wikipedia before being brought to AfD. "Old" articles are those created in the very early days, 2006-2008, and they are sometimes treated differently because there were different rules then. This is not an entirely unusual. It also is not a reason for a keep !vote. LaMona (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went through the first 17 references, and found only a few that actually validate the statements in the article. Other than quality issues (non-reliable sources) the majority did not confirm the information in the article. I marked these as "not in citation given" but in fact most should be deleted for RS reasons. (e.g. download sites, fan sites, mentions, lists). LaMona (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I think you should check references after 17-, most of the reputable publications are listed after. If your going to moderate at least be a little thorough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swerrrdmedia (talk • contribs) 04:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good try, Swerrrdmedia, but the references >17 only reference the discography, so that would leave the entire text of the article poorly referenced, which is still a problem. Honestly, what could this mean?: "The Beauty Of Money (2015) [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]"? fifteen references to source a single recording? That's why I gave up there. LaMona (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Swerrrdmedia is an SPA who shares a username with a company that has a paid relationship with subject. In 2014 they rejected claims there is a COI, stating that they are just a fan. In 2 years here, they've been most uninterested in making any unrelated contributions. Consider this when reviewing their comments as it feels as though perhaps there's a lack of true independence. Rayman60 (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i am in no way affiliated with swerrrdmedia or the artist. And as far as the edits on the subject in general, because of the COI claim i changed my Username years ago and make edits under a different alias, can we please not make this article about me or my edits and focus on the subject at hand. Show some class and respect to the Wikipedia platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swerrrdmedia (talk • contribs) 23:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still no convincing substance. SwisterTwister talk 02:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as promotional ("aggz was raised in the middle class suburbs of New York in a small town called Islip, which is home to many influential artists such as Keith Murray, EPMD, LL Cool J, & Craig Mack." , rand inadequately sourced. This isn't my field, but those who do work in this area are quite specific about what charts are acceptable, and it seems their list has wide consensus. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the meat puppets are working against any argument to keep this. There's nothing to suggest he meets the wider notability guidelines. KaisaL (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Effect[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Inline sources are not about the company and search of the numbered references in the "References" section doesn't return anything either. Google news presence is limited to press releases. Prod contested by IP without comment. shoy (reactions) 12:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Sources aren't actual sources, just titles. Article is written like an advertisement. Possible COI/Promo considering the creator's name. Jergling (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing enough coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and the article reads as awfully promotional (e.g. section headings like "Why Cool Effect" and "Project Pricing"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough third-party, independent coverage. Appears to be about 6 months old, so this is more promotional than informational. May be appropriate at a later date. LaMona (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Purely promotional, company is not-notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:58, 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 Procedural close. Already speedy deleted under G11. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maghsoud factories group[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. All the sources given are either press releases, blog posts, directory listings, or not about the company at all. Prod contested by author. shoy (reactions) 12:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flog[edit]

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

Meanings are mostly dictionary definitions or abbreviations (which the target article does not include the abbreviation). It should be redirected to Flagellation which will have a hatnote to Glossary_of_blogging#Flog. GZWDer (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Almost none of the options are links to relevant pages. Not voting "Delete" per se since you're asking for a content change, not a removal. Jergling (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Flagellation is easily the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, and the only other legitimate usage in Wikipedia (remember WP:NOTDIC) would be at Glossary of blogging#Flog. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, albeit with massive cleanup. I was going to say redirect to Flagellation, but I noticed Flogger (another disambiguation page) as well as the glossary item. Therefore, I recommend rewriting the DAB page to point at Flagellation, Glossary of blogging, and Flogger. Alternately, you could consider redirecting and adding two hatnotes at Flagellation. Cnilep (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the slang definitions and other bullets not appropriate for a disambiguation page. There are still four arguably ambiguous items, though: Flagellation, Fake blog, and Glossary of blogging#Flog, plus a blog by Felicia Day called The Flog. Cnilep (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 4 valid entries, with articles or meeting MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Some are weak (an article about a celebrity who writes a blog that's mentioned in passing in the article for example), but it seems like a valid dab. — Rhododendrites ^talk

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

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

The result was no consensus. A majority is of the view that this term has received enough coverage for us to cover it as well. But this does not amount to consensus to keep, so a merger discussion remains possible. Sandstein 07:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton crazies[edit]

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

This article is a biased attack piece meant to attack critics of the Clintons. Unlike Hillary Clinton's term 'vast right-wing conspiracy'-- a well-known political phrase, this term is an infrequently used neologism and does not warrant its own article. JoeM (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOV and WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "news" and "Highbeam" links above show many other uses of the term in the mainstream media, both then and now. 2600:1002:B11F:62A8:2907:E926:A8BA:A430 (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Why do we have all these articles for political nicknames? Bernie Bro got one too. Apparently any derogatory name that pop culture comes up with to describe opposing politics is fair game for a Wikipedia article. Not to be a deletionist, but it doesn't seem like all of these short-lived pop culture factoids need their own pages. What if we Merge them all into a page for "political nicknames" or something? Jergling (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was also skeptical about this but a google search shows it has been used quite a lot including reference to Trump.Atlantic306 (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to some article about criticism or controversy of the Clintons with a neutral title. ~~Note also that this article does not match its title. The title refers to some people. The article is actually about the condition of obsessive hostility towards the Clintons.~~ Borock (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just struck out part of my comment after reading article again and checking out sources. It is not clear if being "Clinton crazy" is a mental condition, or if the "Clinton crazies" are a group of people.Borock (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All those voting to keep, by the same reasoning I urge you to visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Body Count, which has already been preemptively destroyed and redirected. If the term 'Clinton crazies' can have its own article, why does the conversation on the Clinton Body Count deserve to be censored? JoeM (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Because they're two different topics. The notability of one does not have any effect on the notability of the other. clpo13_(talk) 15:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, maybe tone down the soapboxing on your user page. That content almost certainly falls afoul of WP:POLEMIC, though it does explain why you feel so strongly about this subject. clpo13_(talk) 15:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - What are you talking about? Why, specifically, do you think that we should have an article on 'Clinton crazies' but not on the 'Clinton Body Count'? As far as my user page, we're all biased by nature; and, we are all editing an encyclopedia. At least I am being honest about it. All the people opposing me and reverting me are also biased-- they're just not open about it. I wish one of the pro-Clinton editors would just admit that they don't care what the depth of her (Redacted) history is, as long as she serves as the standard bearer of far-left socialism in America. JoeM (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - If Wikipedia has an article on subject X but not on subject Y, it's because subject X was shown to be more notable than subject Y. So far, the community thinks Clinton crazies is notable enough for inclusion while Clinton Body Count isn't. It's as simple as that. As to why that's the case, well, it's probably a matter of how many sources there are talking about each subject and whether those sources are reliable. Personally, I have no opinion on either article, but I think that if you're going to start assuming anyone in favor of this article and against the other is necessarily pro-Clinton, you're going to have a bad time. clpo13_(talk) 17:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Look at the two terms. There are more people talking about the 'Clinton Body Count' than people talking about critics of the Clintons being 'Clinton crazies', despite the contrasting poll responses here. The two AFD requests are indeed closely intertwined. Wikipedia needs to be consistent. If 'Clinton crazies' survives AFD, by the same standard so should 'Clinton Body Count'. I would be fine with both articles getting redirected or deleted too-- as long as we stay consistent. JoeM (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "All those voting to keep, by the same reasoning I urge you to visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Body Count" This is rather unabashed WP:CANVASSING. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical phrase. Well enough documented by WP:RS. Has current usage. Article is WP:NPOV. No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO says "To support an article about a...term or concept...must cite what reliable secondary sources...say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.". Show me plenty of sources that are about the term rather than just using it, and maybe I'll change my !vote to keep. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Metz, Allan (1999). "Right-wing opposition to Bill Clinton and his presidency: an annotated bibliography". Reference Services Review. 27 (1): 13–61. ISSN 0090-7324. Enjoy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't enjoy it. You have to pay 30 bucks to enjoy it. :) But I see enough sources now. Switching to weak keep. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I'm right on the edge for this one. Stripping it down to the basic question of whether to neologism "Clinton crazies" is notable, I'm leaning weak delete. There's the original NY Times piece by Weiss, Daily Beast, Media Matters (not an ideal source for this subject), Huffington Post (also not ideal), and Media Research Center. That said, there may be a subject in here somewhere along the lines of [what sources describe as] irrational or unreasonable criticism/hatred of the Clintons. But I'm not sure how that could be done without a POV/COATRACK nightmare, and it may well be that such criticism can simply be covered in the standard articles about political positions, campaigns, biographies, etc. (of which there are many). I'm willing to be persuaded to switch, but for now I think delete. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We lack good sources to indicate this is either a well used term, or a broadly used one. It does not fit our guidelines for articles on terminology.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be documented in reliable sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Alright, then. I see enough sources. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable neologism. It's election season again, here they come... Carrite (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Prolific use since the 1990s, as espoused within sources provided. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep but consider retitling to something less neologism-ish and pejorative. Also, consider whether this could be merged into another article or morphed into a broader article about the broader phenomenon / concept of X-derangement syndrome, e.g. Bush derangement syndrome (which, after 6 nominations, is currently redirected to Public image of George W. Bush). - Wikidemon (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wasn't aware of this phrase, but I found a 1997 New York Times article on it, so it has clearly been notable for some time. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:29, 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. JohnCD (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Embrace[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:BAND. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, just some blog interviews. OnionRing (talk) 09:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello OnionRing, Allmusic.com I consider a verified resource, please check their wiki [[8]] to be listed at their database you need to have some notability, also Artist Direct [[9]] requests some degree of notability to be included at their database not many resources online are because this particular band does not grant interviews, very few available nor pictures, MTV Networks is owned by Viacom band is listed as well I also consider a reliable source WP:Reliable sources, also they are listed at "POLLSTAR" which is a trade publication for the concert tour industry in which they gather information from professional agents, managers and promoters who produce concerts [[10]] following link not posted at the article Blue Embrace \ Pollstar, Thank you for your help in this article!TarotRecs (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you editing on behalf of Tarot Records, Blue Embrace's record label? If so, then you should not be editing an article on which you have a WP:Conflict of interest. Thanks, OnionRing (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not represent Tarot Records, my account is new and when i created that login that was what it came to my mind, per your suggestion in my page i requested a change in the username so there is no confusion, all information gathered are from internet source that is public and available TarotRecs (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Page arranged and fixed as requested by other members, this page it is complaint to be added to wikipedia and not to be deleted, sources are VERIFIED and CREDIBLE, including a major media outlet in rock (Blabbermouth), famous Journalists (Denise Ames), Famous and legendary Musicians such as Ex Black Sabbath , DIO members (Carmine Appice, Vinny Appice) with notable and public reputation between several other famous sources also added Spell26 (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks like it has a consensus already please check "Once discussion is closed, please place on talk page: {{Old AfD multi|page=Blue Embrace|date=29 June 2016|result=keep""Medit16 (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, Spell26's comment reeks of promotion, and allmusic isn't close to a reliable source. Also, see WP:CON, as many totally legitimate accounts have !voted here. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic is a reliable source as shown in this list of albums reliable sources at the top of this page [11] however just a listing isn't enough for notability there needs to be a biography written by staff.which like most groups this group doesn't have so extra sources are needed. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)21:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)21:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: Spell and Medit are socks, and TarotRecs is the same account (rename) as Medit. Socks blocked and AFD semi-protected. Courcelles (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; all the commenters seem to have a WP:COI or are socks (or both); could we please have some policy based arguments Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources and no other criteria of WP:BAND is claimed to be satisfied. Blogs are not reliable. Interviews are not independent. Directory/discography entries are not significant. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like the other non-sockpuppets, I'm not seeing any reliable sources beyond the (less-than-reliable) blogosphere. A G-search turns up the usual top-listed culprits of non-notable relentless self-promoters: the band's website, its Facebook page, its Allmusic page, its Twitter page, its YouTube page, its SoundCloud page, its Vevo page ... Ravenswing 06:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Collins (ice hockey forward, born 1983)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is a NHOCKEY pass, actually; he was a first team All-American. Ravenswing 11:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does this !vote indicate that you disagree with the NHOCKEY standards for notability, or are Ravenswing and I incorrect that he was an All-American? Rlendog (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes NHOCKEY and WP:NCOLLATH as 1st team All-American. Rlendog (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes Nhockey. -DJSasso (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NHOCKEY and WP:NCOLLATH as a 1st team All-American. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:11, 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. The nominators arguments about sources appear to have consensus DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Allsup[edit]

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

Precedent from WP:POLOUTCOMES indicates that the subject doesn't seem notable for their political action. The other coverage doesn't seem to confer notability to Allsup himself than it does the greater movements that he is complicit in (eg the wall at UW being the focus of several of the sources, with the subject offering short comments in them). To elaborate:

[12] Students For Trump is not a reliable source that establishes notability.
[13] The Daily Evergreen is a vehicle through which Washington State University's Office of Student Media is dedicated to providing students a public forum. It has limited value as an independent source in establishing notability, as it is natural for the university's media organ to report on events involving the university itself. Allsup is featured in this article through three quotes, alongside other quotes by students involved with Students For Trump; the article itself concerns the movement, not Allsup.
[14] Allsup is featured in this article as a passing mention as campaign manager for Roemer, who is the subject of the article. Roemer is not yet elected to the Washington House of Representatives; WP:NPOL states that an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability barring other coverage. Allsup does not have coverage in independent, reliable sources in the context of being Roemer's campaign manager.
[15] KOMO appears to be a reliable source, but Allsup makes only a brief appearance with two short comments in this article that is about a larger-scale reaction against a school's policy on Twitter, not about Allsup.
[16] Students For Trump is not a reliable source that establishes notability.
[17] the gathering was organized by the WSU College Republicans, of which Allsup is president; it is a trivial passing mention that does not establish notability for Allsup.
[18] Vance said James Allsup, president of WSU College Republicans, invited him to WSU to speak; it is a trivial passing mention that does not establish notability for Allsup.
[19] Though the use of search engines and the like is noted as a litmus test for significance, Twitter is not a reliable source that establishes notability.
[20] Routine documentation of election data does not contribute to notability. WP:POLOUTCOMES says Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted.
[21] The Seattle Times is a reliable source that would establish notability if the subject of it was the subject of this Wikipedia article. However, it provides more evidence of notability for Trump's Wall and the Trump movement in general than it does for Allsup himself.
[22] Similarly to the Seattle Times article, this source is about Trump, not Allsup.
[23] Similarly to the Seattle Times article, this source is about Trump, not Allsup.
[24] This article by the Seattle Weekly, which appears to be a reliable source, is titled The UW Trump Movement Is a Perfect Microcosm of the Donald’s Ridiculous Campaign and describes an analysis of the Trump movement on US university campuses. The article, ultimately being about the Trump movement, attributes two quotes to Allsup, which constitutes a passing mention.
[25] A registration form is not a reliable source that establishes notability.

→Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 07:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get to as many of your points as I can.

1: The students4trump.com site is the web domain that acts as the hub for the Students for Trump organization and its social media presence- over 55k followers on Instagram, 29k followers on Twitter, etc. The source is as reliable as can be expected for a political organization.

2: Due to the nature of where Washington State University is located, and the notability of Washington State University as a top 10 journalism school in the United States, The Daily Evergreen is the most widely distributed newspaper in the Moscow/Pullman metropolitan area of the United States. While it is a student paper, it serves as a primary source of news for many of the area's non-student residents, and has qualified for and won many national journalism awards including the College Media Association Apple Awards, Society of Professional Journalists Mark of Excellence Awards, Columbia Scholastic Press Association Gold Crown Award, and others. A full list is available here: http://www.dailyevergreen.com/site/awards.html

3: Per point 2, the Daily Evergreen should be considered a reliable source. Reliability of Allsup being Roemer's campaign manager will be addressed in point 14.

4: Allsup is featured prominently in the video posted accompanying the article. Allsup was also the one to create the Change.org petition as featured in the article which was the catalyst for the chain of events.

5: See 1

6: This article alone is not justification for the article, but speaks to the variety and volume of Allsup's work in political organization within the state of Washington.

7: See 6

8: The page linked contains no mention of Twitter, as such, a Twitter search seems like it should be compliant- I may be misinterpreting you however. I could edit the sourcing of the article to include individual Tweets that identify Allsup as the catalyst for the movement if you prefer.

9: See 6

10-13: The source(s) is/are about an event which Allsup directly organized. Speaks to the same points as point 6.

14: The registration form in question is a legal document sourced directly from a .gov domain. This C1 form fits all definitions of a source as outlined in sections 1.1-1.4 of the RS page. Not seeing your objection here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsmedia (talk • contribs) 09:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I'm a bit short on time so I can't respond as well as I'd like, but when I say that they're "not reliable" I don't mean that the information they contain is suspect, I mean that they don't demonstrate that Allsup himself is the one who should merit the article; see the notability page for details. My concern over the Daily Evergreen is that it's already closely involved with the things that happen an WSU and Allsup himself is already closely involved with the things that happeen at WSU, so it's not exactly independent; due to its close affinity with Allsup it's not much more than WP:SELFPUB, as Jergling noted below. But anyway I help that cleared something up. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 16:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mostly local coverage except passing mentions from the national org for which he works. At least one spamblog ref (IBT) mixed in there. Most of the sources are effectively WP:SELFPUB due to their relationship with Allsup and his organization. Irrelevant DotGov links thrown in to obfuscate the poor sourcing. Looks like someone trying to game the system, and now we have a WP:ISU/WP:ORGNAME account commenting to defend the article. Jergling (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yeah, I'm not seeing it. Where are the reliable sources giving the "significant coverage" to Allsup that the GNG requires? Not to the organization he doesn't actually lead, not to quotes he's given (it's well established that quotes from a subject cannot be used to establish notability of the subject), not to a candidate that doesn't herself qualify for an article, not to a school club to which he belongs, to Allsup himself? They aren't there. Ravenswing 07:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is right. In a word, my objection is that none of the sources are actually about Allsup. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 05:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of aircraft (0-A)[edit]

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

Purports to be a list of aircraft but doesn't contain any. Andrew D. (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Right; looks like the outcome of a page re-org. We should involve WP:Aircraft to see what folks there think of the new structure. The outcome is a proliferation of very tiny pages... --Rlandmann (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of the overall re-organisation, disruptive nomination as it's clear from the article history that this is being used as part of a comprehensive navigation aid. Page receives around 100 hits per day, think of the readers who use this. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, think of all those readers who come to this page and find that there are no aircraft listed. Here's an example of a recent complaint, "I notice that clicking on 0-A, or B brings forth a blank page. I guess an airplanes as worthy as the Avro 504 or the Boeing 707 don't matter." Andrew D. (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know where those exist. The clear and obvious purpose behind this navigation change is that the previous lists became unmanageably large, so they have been broken down further. I credit you with sufficient intelligence to realise this and to navigate your way to Avro 504 or Boeing 707 with little trouble using these pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Broken" is the operative word here when the lists are so sparse that they can be empty. If I want the Avro 504 then I'll just go straight there. That page is linked to a variety of more useful aircraft lists. One of them is List of aircraft (D). That's rather weird but at least there are some aircraft in that list. Andrew D. (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not weird at all, is it? If you bothered to look, you would see this is a work in progress. If you dislike it, I imagine you should talk to the project or the people doing the work, rather than attempting to undermine it in this manner. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep It's a work in progress, nomination is disruptive and violates WP:AIRCRAFT. Per WP:SIZE they needed to be broken down further, but then the infobox would be ridiculously large if we didn't have these smaller subpages. You'd know that if you bothered to look, but you didn't. Smartyllama (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was a spinoff from another similar nomination: List of aircraft by date and usage category. I'm not sure what we're supposed to be looking at at WP:AIRCRAFT. Please clarify. Andrew D. (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a "spinoff", it was a pointed nomination. I think you understand the point being made, I'm sure you're capable of looking at the history of the A to Z lists and seeing how unmanageably large they are, and therefore why this approach has been adopted. However, if you can't see that, I'll be more than happy to walk you through it. My !vote stands, by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Making the pages so small that they don't contain any aircraft doesn't seem manageable. I'm sticking to my view that this is not a sensible way to list aircraft. Andrew D. (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and that is your entitlement in the face of contrary explanation and logic, to maintain your view, we would expect nothing less. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this shouldn't be deleted as a work in progress. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - Information from this list has been used in creating sublists. Therefore this list is non-deletable for copyright/attribution reasons. Mjroots (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Convert into a template It serves no purpose beyond what a template could do, and do better, without confusing anyone that lands here. Now it has been converted into a list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a master page for the alphabetical lists, obviously serves its purpose. - Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd done a non-admin close per WP:SKCRIT: the nomination statement no longer applies, by the nominator's admission, and no one is calling for its deletion, anymore. But I see Richard has rolled that back. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 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. JohnCD (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chandan Shetty[edit]

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

Although there may be claims of significance, my searches are simply not finding anything other than non-substantial news or simply mere mentions, nothing convincing and thus there's nothing to suggest the needed independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply too soon. Did a first music video this year (possibly in May). Clearly unusual in that he raps in Kannada, but he'll still need to have more coverage before an article is warranted. (Can anyone see if he has an article in Kannada WP? I'm just curious.) LaMona (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable musician and does not have significant coverage. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:32, 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. JohnCD (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hasidim[edit]

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

No notability under WP:PROF of otherwise; primary activity appears to be promotion. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no passing of any notability guidelines for academics. He is a business professor who has not made any significant contributions to the field.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If everything said in the article were verifiable (e.g. being advisor to Israeli Prime Ministers) then he might be notable, but I don't find any way to verify those claims. Note that much of the text is an exact copy of his bio at Zionist Billionaires Forum, which carries a copyright notice, but no releasing license (e.g. CC). LaMona (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT. Fails NPROF and GNG. We cannot keep on discussing the same AfDs again and again. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:34, 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 Speedy delete G7. -- GB fan 13:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jermaine Edwards[edit]

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

Reason Jermaine1107 (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to delete this article as Jermaine Edwards currently waiting to be signed to a team under the guidelines stated, will create another page as soon as I'm signed. Was unaware that there were guidelines that had to be followed that associates you with a certain basketball league to create a professional basketball player wikipedia page. Thank you very much.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As the requester is the originator and the only substantial author of the article, I've tagged it for speedy deletion under WP:G7. -Nat Gertler (talk) 05:21, 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. JohnCD (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Able Labs[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While noting the 2006 comment at Talk:Able_Labs#Removal of non-notable tag, the FDA action and the firm's consequent failure seem to me to fall short of the WP:EFFECT criteria. I can see various news items from The Record in Bergen County and some industry publications but these seem to me to be routine and local coverage. A 2008 case is also reported [26] but as application of an earlier judgment. I do not see the in-depth coverage needed for notability. AllyD (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently there was no widespread scandal that resulted in this company being noteworthy even for that. No significant independent coverage of this company either positive or negative. And no coverage that would qualify for WP:CORPDEPTH. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 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. Sandstein 07:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evbosie[edit]

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

No indication of importance or notability. Also no information at all when searched with Google. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 13:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources provided and I cannot find anything elsewhere. -Pax Verbum 14:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing could be found to establish notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 05:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG, gmaps brings up nothing, gsearch brings up wikipages, and a mention in Views on the Origins, Structure and Hierarchy of Some Niger Delta Mud Sculpture Styles of Southern Nigeria from The Anthropologist - "“Olokun” is a river goddess associated with wealth and the provision of children. ... The request was granted and subsequently a shrine was erected in honour of Olokun in Evboise.", so it may have existed but Figure 1 in the paper - "Fig. 1. Map showing areas, towns and peoples mentioned in this study" does not show Evboise. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:18, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Know-It-All Tour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As per the previous nomination, this is a non-notable theater tour embarked upon after the artist released one album. The page lacks any reliable sources and does not include any reviews or attendance numbers. The setlist is entirely unreferenced and appears to be WP:OR. Karst (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I voted! delete on the first nom, when the artist only had one hit. They now have three hits under their belt (along with a support on the Coldplay tour this summer in the interregnum), and this tour has gone from small venues to much larger mid-sized venues for the second part of the tour. Remove the setlist (which will probably change anyways), but I think even without that we can easily source the venues and dates easily. Nate • (chatter) 07:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The artist's notability isn't in question. Her (she's a "her," not a "they") charting hits' notability is not in question. To establish a tour's notability, you have to do more than just prove the tour exists, or source names and dates; you have to demonstrate that the tour itself, above and beyond the artist, has received "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources, per the GNG. Otherwise, this merits no more than a short paragraph in the artist's own article, which isn't nearly long enough for such a content fork. Ravenswing 07:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found plenty of announcements that the tour was planned, tickets were available, but I only found one very short post-performance review here. I found nothing to show that the tour itself got attention beyond being a tour with tickets to sell. LaMona (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NTOUR since the one provided source is the artist's website. Aspects (talk) 03:27, 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 Laguna Hills Mall. JohnCD (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Five Lagunas[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete and redirect to Laguna Hills Mall. The article suggests a name change at some point in the future which can simply be done with WP:MOVE with a re-direct to the new title, when it happens. Ajf773 (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above rationale. Alyssa3467 (talk) 00:21, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 02:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R.C. Natarajan[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This article fails to meet WP:PROF, and is highly unlikely to be notable under any other criteria. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you suggest some edits and additions that are required to make the article meet the notability/other guidelines? Amazingandlively (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added new, important content at multiple places in the article along with citations. Please review once again. Amazingandlively (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He would not meet WP:PROF as a scholar. The question is whether he is notable as an administrator. We accept being the president (or equivalent title) of a university, and we have accepted head (however called) of a freestanding medical school , and I think a free-standing law law school. I don't see we have any clear consensus about the head of a free-standing business school. Most we have dealt with have been components of universities. I'm prepared to extent it in some cases. The problem here is the promotionalism of the article, whee he is taking responsibility for the accomplishments of the school. Unfortunately the article is worded in a misleading way, The lead give information that might be taken to indicate it's one of the 2 top business schools in India, but the data given does not match the information in triple accreditation, and by the country's own measure, found much lower down in the article, the school ranks considerably lower. There is also a listing of minor awards to the school--best business school in South India is much less significant than best in Indi; membership on a committee is much lesss ignificant than chairman. Typically, the listing of minor credentials implies that the article wouldn't be sufficiently long and impressive if limited to major ones. Obviously some of this could be fixed, but this is nonetheless not a good place to set the precedent of what we accept. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-consider. As you say some of it can be fixed, and I need some pointers around what can be done to improve the article further, for which there is scope for sure. Amazingandlively (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The institution is not major enough to qualify for WP:Prof#C6. Not other cause for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I guess the article is about the person and not the institution per se. Amazingandlively (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as examining this still found overall questionability and nothing actually convincing, thus delete. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate a bit on how the article is questionable and lacks conviction? Thanks. Amazingandlively (talk) 03:49, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hellointern[edit]

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

I had PRODded this with the rationale "Does not pass WP:CORP or WP:N only one of the sources is about the company, the rest are columns by company employees. No significant coverage for the finding either." The article was deleted but then restored after that as a contested PROD. I think the same rationale still applies. —SpacemanSpiff 03:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 03:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 03:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 03:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The website receives good web traffic and there are sources that are relevant in its country of origin. An equivalent website based in the U.S. would, probably, be overwhelmingly kept and I think it's important to avoid cultural bias. There seems to be slightly too little coverage to keep it, but I'd not object to it. KaisaL (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Secret Chiefs 3. And merge whatever is deemed appropriate from the history. Sandstein 07:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second Grand Constitution and Bylaws: Hurqalya[edit]

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

Does not appear to be sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. FamblyCat94 (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on band. The AllMusic entry is a reliable source but I'm unable to find any other professional reviews. Woodroar (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Secret Chiefs 3. czar 05:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes of Flesh, Eyes of Flame[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on band. The AllMusic entry is a reliable source but I'm unable to find any professional reviews. Woodroar (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Secret Chiefs 3. A single review is not significant coverage. czar 05:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Book M[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has an allmusic review which counts as a reliable sourceAtlantic306 (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on band. The AllMusic entry is a reliable source but I'm unable to find any professional reviews. Woodroar (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Path of Most Resistance[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has an entry at AllMusic and was reviewed in The Skinny. Woodroar (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one review and an entry at Allmusic does not establish notability. I tried to find more - it doesn't exist. Rockypedia (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Secret Chiefs 3.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Le Mani Destre Recise Degli Ultimi Uomini[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds intriguing, but ... every source I found was a slight variation of every other source, ditto the content of this WP article. Their own web page isn't reachable at the moment. A listing of the article on the band's page seems sufficient. LaMona (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a quick google search found that there are reviews available that can be added and used for information references and to have a reception section Atlantic306 (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite Supersonic Vol. 1[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 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. I think it's established that a mere listing on allmusic does not establish notability , and there does not seem to be anything else. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Souls: Folio A[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge. Has an entry at AllMusic and was announced at Exclaim.ca. There may be others. If anything, merge to the band's article. Woodroar (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources other than AllMusic and that is a bare listing, not even fan reviews. Acc. to Web of Mimicry, which is the band's label, they are founders of the label so it's almost a form of self-publishing. LaMona (talk) 23:46, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Animali In Calore Surriscaldati Con Ipertermia Genitale/Cat in Red[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pranav Singh[edit]

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

Delete or Redirect to Shorgul : I think it's too soon for an individual article as he only directed one film so far which is still to release plus I fail to find any independent reliable sources to support WP:NOTABILITY. Thank You – GSS (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If a merge is still desired, a discussion can be started on the talk page. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Town Council elections[edit]

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

This article is simply a brief sentence about how the Council's name changed (which is already covered in the Liverpool City Council article) and a list of around 40 redlinks. It will very likely be deleted, but I'm sending it to AfD because I don't speedy delete unless the article obviously qualifies. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 23:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to wait and see if the creator is going to create those articles before deciding that this would make sense to remove. It's a bit of an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comment, but current town council elections do have articles - see Hartlepool Borough Council election, 2002 - so there's precedent for the actual articles linked to exist. If they remain red-linked then definitely delete. KaisaL (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC) Will go with merge (with redirect) per User:Number 57. KaisaL (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Liverpool City Council elections It's the same organisation, just renamed when it got city status. Number 5 7 19:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a predecessor of Liverpool City Council elections, however I would suggest that the difference between a town and city council are significant. I am in the process of obtaining the data to fill the red links for this page. I have today added Liverpool Town Council election, 1879 which is almost complete. The references are links to scans of pages of the reference documents held on Google Drive. I have much of the data going back to 1845 and am working on completing this as much as can be done. The town council goes back to the 1830s and was itself preceded by a 'Common Council'. However, as I'm sure you all appreciate, it does take time to conduct proper research. If this page were to be merged with Liverpool City Council elections, the resultant page may better be named 'Liverpool Council Elections', however this would be inconsistent with the naming of the other election pages within the Local elections in Merseyside template. Considering the expansion of Liverpool (for example the 1895 expansion, see Liverpool City Council election, 1895 and subsequently, consistent parts of the current city previously had separate electoral arrangements, for example the Urban District Councils of Walton, Wavertree and West Derby. Therefore I think it is logical to keep Liverpool Town Council elections. Thank you for your considerations.Pat.moloney (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

City status is less significant than changes in the structure of local government, such as the creation and abolition of metropolitan county councils. Councils that have only had city status more recently (Preston City Council elections and Sunderland City Council elections) don't have separate pages for when they were borough councils. The appropriate date to cut off is probably in the 1830s when Liverpool became a municipal borough. Peter James (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a prospect of populating the red links we should keep it.Rathfelder (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The links can and should be added to Liverpool City Council elections as it's the same organisation, just renamed. Number 5 7 18:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The justification for it being a page to include the links to the individual elections is the standard way we deal with this. I'm convinced by Pat.mahoney's argument DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 31 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ines Temple[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. for (;;) (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nom did not do WP:BEFORE. There are plenty of sources about Temple. I've added several to the article. These include both sources in Spanish and English. Anyone more fluent in Spanish than me can probably find a ton more in Spanish. Subject of the article passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We need multiple sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. Not passing mentions, or any old site that happens to have the topic's name in it, and certainly not Blogs. JMHamo (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Blogs from established news sources, like El Comercio (Peru) are reliable sources. She is written up fully, with a very in-depth profile in La Republica. Her book, as you can see if you look in the article itself, is a best-seller in Peru. These are all good for establishing notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with kudos to User:Megalibrarygirl for her WP:HEY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a leader in her field and a best-selling author. MurielMary (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Jurgensmeyer[edit]

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

Article relies entirely on self-published sources and unreliable sources (FamousBirthdays and IMDb). nyuszika7h (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Generates some sourcing "heat" for Legends of the Hidden Temple: The Movie and The Little Rascals Save the Day, but I'm inclined to think it's not enough. I lean in the direction of this being WP:TOOSOON here. But I won't vote yet, and could be persuaded otherwise, sourcing quality permitted... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need very good sources to keep articles on minors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Ulch! I can't believe I'm saying this, but under Wikipedia's current (what I consider to be low) notability standards, I think Jurgensmeyer actually clears WP:NACTOR – among The Little Rascals Save the Day, Adventures in Babysitting (2016 film) and Legends of the Hidden Temple (2016 film), I think he's got it. I've added some mainline sourcing to the article to, and cut down on the promotional stuff. It's possible there's even more secondary sourcing out there (though I tend to doubt it). In any case, under the current "rules of the game", I think Jurgensmeyer is currently a "weak keep". (Failing that, this article would be a strong candidate for "Draftifying"...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are 1) his own site 2) a short article about him (good source) 3) the rest are name-checks. I don't find anything better in a quick search. (There is one St. Louis Dispatch article, but it's all quotes from him.) Too soon, plus, really, what is there to say in any depth about a child star? Let's hope he has a good career ahead of him. LaMona (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- By that standard it's "one and a half" (at least) – THR one is good, and the Variety one on Legend of the Hidden Temple is more than a "name check" and is a fair GNG ref. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep. marginal. but there was this "Nashville, It's 'Jet's' World.(Malone, Janice. The Tennessee Tribune [Nashville, Tenn] 23 June 2016: 2B [27]) profile in a hometown paper in Nashville, with details from which bio can be sourced - first role was in his parent's dinner theatre. There another home state/regional paper wrote up a role he played when he was a 5-year-old Sharayah Daves lands big role in Alan Jackson video [28]), More coverage form when he was 5 (Concert at the Loveless benefits flood relief, The Tennessean [Nashville, Tenn] 06 May 2010. Chattanooga Times Free Press [Chattanooga, Tenn] 28 Aug 2009: H.23.) Most coverage of his more recent roles are mere mentions, but as user User:IJBall says, unless we are going to change the WP:NACTOR guideline, there is the fact that this can be sourced to RS, there is at least a some actual coverage (going back to minor child actor stints), and he has been in several bluelinked films. (btw, which one was "Spanky"?).E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NACTOR. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there's at least enough convincing for now. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sector7seven[edit]

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

Full disclosure: I created this article way back in April 2005. Based on our current guidelines, which were in their infancy and much more open to debate back then, this fails WP:MUSIC comfortably. Only claim to relevance is winning a contest run by MTV and eJay at the turn of the millennium which was not major in itself. Limited references, no major releases, no charting songs. Cannot delete myself as creating user as others have contributed over the past eleven (!) years. KaisaL (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources to add here. As such the act fails WP:GNG. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As our notability standards have got stricter over the years, this no longer satisfied GNG or WP:BAND. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:06, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Electric Corporation[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for WP:COPYVIO if nothing else. This one is hard because there are a number of other companies with the same name, including one that presumably created the airplane mentioned in the article. I suspect the airplane was NOT built by this American Electric. To search on this it is necessary to add "culver city" to the search. Having done that, the only information I find is in newspapers and it is about various product recalls: here, here, and here. Unfortunately, in my searches I found this, and the current article is a straight copy from that, so it should be deleted for WP:COPYVIO. LaMona (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "america.pink" is a chinese site witch mirrors wikipedia content without attribution. No comment on the AFD, but this is not a copyvio; at least not from that site. Kuru (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The given references, including the brief product review in the NYT, do not demonstrate notability for the company itself, nor are my searches identifying anything better. AllyD (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no historical significance to this company. Two product reviews - food processor brands - mention this company only in passing - no noteworthy coverage of this company. Another article discusses a 1931 American Brown-Boveri Electric Company's electric division to be absorbed by some other company - that is not this company. Recall blurbs and heating pad blurb only mentions this company in passing. The airplane article is a 1931 newspaper article and that is not this company. The more current articles in the 1970's show only this company once existed. There is no indication of significant impact or notability. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also see this related (newly created) AfD - WP:Articles for deletion/American Food Processor. --Steve Quinn (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Shifidi[edit]

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

Assuming the article is correct (for some reason the NA sources lag forever and I cannot access them) this person is a councilor of Endola Constituency, population < 40k. That fails WP:NPOL by by a landslide. If someone tells me they can access the sources and they do establish notability by WP:GNG I will happily withdraw. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's note: I also think this can be reverted, if the AfD ends up deleting. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Between the article's lack of clarity and my own unfamiliarity with the structures of Angolan government, I had to check sources to determine whether "councillor for Endola Constituency" made him a local official on Endola's own local government body, or Endola's representative in the national legislature — but the sources confirmed that it's the former (local) body. But a local government body which governs just 36K people does not give its officeholders an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing, and this isn't making a particularly strong claim that he's more notable than the norm — apart from the initial statement that he exists, this is just a campaign-brochure biography rather than a substantive analysis of his career in politics, and that's not how you get a local politician over the inclusion bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Merge to Endola Constituency. Could squeak past GNG, with a generous (for WP:SYSTEMICBIAS) interpretation of "in-depth" and heavy WP:MINEing, but to avoid making a WP:PERMASTUB the verifiable material could be added to the town's article (keep the election results, and add "Shifidi is former principal, low-level party official, and brother of Immanuel). Sources:

Brief reports that he was elected, [29] [30] [31] [32] minimal background like "former principal" & his age, and vote totals. He won by a landslide, and said he intended to build better roads.[33] Turnout was big, election was fair. [34][[35]]
Some coverage during campaign, with some encyclopedic info [36]
Interview about local issues relating to a drought [37]
Brief quote and photograph in this paper focusing on his brother's death
In a list as "believed to be in detention" [38] [39]
Wildcard: several paragraphs I (and Google Translate) can't understand. [40] [41] [42]

FourViolas (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nonotable. A merge to the constituency is absurd considering there are 7 other people holding the same position who arent mentioned at all. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely only also since there's nothing actually suggestive of his own independent notability, deleted and mentioned there suffices. SwisterTwister talk 19:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth of Virginia Emergency Management Plan[edit]

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

I cannot tell I am sure this should be deleted. Of course, right now it is a badly-written promotional piece and a look at the creator's contributions does not give a good impression, but those are not valid reasons for deletion.

A search for Commonwealth of Virginia "Emergency Management Plan" yields few results, most of which are educational institutions, and possibly false positives like this and that. The question is whether the "academic" sources are considered independent (they are from the uni's management, not from researchers), and whether there are enough of them for GNG. I tend to think not. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tigraan is wrong. The article is not poorly written, the sources are legit, and the pieces has nothing to do with promoting a business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CurtDCollins2017 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CurtDCollins2017: The sources may be reliable (i.e. "legit") but the problem is that the notability of the subject is not established - Wikipedia simply does not cover everything that is true or verifiable. Only independent sources (without a close connection to the subject) can establish notability.

As for the WP:PROMOTION issues, they are not necessarily connected with monetary gain. The CoV employs a very comprehensive set of procedures (...) is promotional, for instance. And no, the article is not written in decent encyclopedic style, see e.g. Review of the documents leads me to conclude that (...) (and replacing "me" by "one" would hardly be better). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delet or stub I too cannot find WP:RS to support notability in the Wikipedia sense for this specific topic. But the article itself is mostly just a completely unsupported analysis and opinion essay about the topic, which fails to meet GNG even if the organization or other underlying subject itself did. DMacks (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research essay, unconvincing in terms of GNG. Sandstein 07:43, 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 15:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Authentic Journalism[edit]

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

Requesting deletion per WP:NOTE and WP:ORG (with respect to the school), as no sources are independent (they are all interviews of or remarks by the supposed originator of the term). A search did not find any results which showed coverage with substantial depth. Thylacine222 (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also noticed looking at sources that the one other person quoted on page is also associated with the school. I think this is a candidate for speedy deletion per WP:G11 Thylacine222 (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ (change to Delete - see below ) ~~to Al Giordano. The references and other sources in Google news search almost make this topic notable~~ - but not quite. It is unfortunate because it is an interesting school of thought. I am thinking some alternate-newspapers (the weeklies) are probably closest to this type of journalism - and some are not. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn: Were you able to find independent sources in Google News? The only articles I could find clearly referring to the school of thought or the actual school were from NarcoNews, which runs the school. Honestly, I don't think any section of this article could be merged without making the other article significantly more advertorial. Thylacine222 (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thylacine222: I was tired when I was at this AfD - maybe I misunderstood the sources I was looking at. I'll have another look. I'm certainly not interested in promoting adverts on Wikipedia. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

problematic sources of School of Authentic Journalism. This appears to have been some sort of short course for activist journalism. It may have taken place only once, not sure. Sourced to the small, online Narco News, of which Giardano is the founder and editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most search hits on this "school" are to Narco News here: [43]. There is this in the alternative/progressive Tucson Weekly: [44]. But it is "posted by," probably indicating that the Tucson Weekly (like many online and small outlets) allows some writers to post at will. Not the same as edited journalism. And this "article" is an advertorial shilling for donations to the "School"'s kickstarter campaign. This doesn't look good so far.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term itself, "authentic journalism," is a neologism being pushed by Giordano (whose own article could use a careful vetting - it's overstuffed with hype). Neologisms are fine, but searching on this one [45] leads into a tiny echochamber of Giordano buddies and admirers. It also lead to an article , in Narco News - surprise, surprise! [46] establishing that the School of Narco Journalism is a sort of Brigadoon that "exists once a year." E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best source for the neologism and for the "School" is this: [47] article in the Boston Phoenix. Unfortuantely, since the article is in the paper Giordano worked for at the time of publication, it is not an independent source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent validation found for either the "School" or the neologism. Not even enough to justify a redirect to Al Giordano.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (@Thylacine222:) 99% of the sources on Google News seem to be Narco News which runs the school, as has been said above. And, according to this discussion the other sources seem to be questionable as reliable and/or independent. I agree with this. I would rather see broader coverage in sources that are not questionable. I think my above comment was tainted by liking or being enamored with this topic. Also, the Huffington Post posted an article either related to this subject or on this subject [48]. I don't know if this had been noticed before. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Defaulting to Keep. (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skills for Care[edit]

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

Alleged to be a csd G-11 article, but its been here a while and without the additional iffy material it may have a chance. Letting the community settle this one. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I keep finding passing mentions of this (service?) in various articles, such as in the Guardian --> [49] -- along with the words "prestigious" and "prestigious awards" and similar characterizing. It seems the Brits like this one, but I haven't found it to be the actual subject of articles yet. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a lark I tried "Google Scholar" and found this: [50]. And I don't know how good a source this would be: [51]. And this might qualify for significant coverage [52] ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, or possibly WP:SMERGE to Social care in England. Not particularly promotional in its present form, and appears to have some just-about-significant coverage on The Guardians website [53] and in books about social care, e.g. [54] [55]. Not sure if it's really worth a separate article to itself, but I guess there are quite a few other similar articles in Category:Sector Skills Councils, and merging might lose the infobox. Qwfp (talk) 12:18, 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) 09:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SecurityMetrics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I missed commenting before at the 1st AfD or else I would've commented Delete, my searches and examinations have still found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost entirely sourced to its own publications: an obvious naive advertisement, listing its executives and its products. DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advert Prevan (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourced only to press releases and own site. Plus, any company that lists as their only award a "Stevie" has no real awards to mention, although they do list some other awards on their web site relating to HIPAA compliance. I haven't been able to verify those, however, beyond their own press releases. LaMona (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG and purely an advertisement. For a moment I thought I am reading the "about us" section on their website. Company is not notable and just another company, doing regular business. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:37, 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 no consensus. After three relistings, consensus for a particular action has not occurred. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

33rd Ale Kino! Festival[edit]

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

Briefly, I feel that individual edition of Ale Kino! International Young Audience Film Festival fail to meet Wikipedia:Notability. I originally proposed a merger to the main article, but at Talk:Ale Kino! International Young Audience Film Festival not only the creator, but also User:PanchoS objected, and since the latter explicitly suggested AfD, here we are. I proposed the lastest, 33rd edition for deletion as it is most recent and so sources should be more forthcoming then for, let's say, the 17th Ale Kino! Festival (and judging by Template:Ale Kino! International Young Audience Film Festival, the creator intends to create a page for each different edition). As the individual festival articles are referenced only with WP:PRIMARY, WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources - festival's own website - I looked outside. I see nothing in international media (few mentions in passing and listings like [56] do not help much), but in Polish media there is a bit more coverage. I found two sources for the last edition: one in regional media ([57]) and one in a larger Polish Internet portal ([58]). Unfortunately, I stand by my view that such sources are not sufficient for individual editions. They would be good for expanding the main article (which, I feel, has enough room to accommodate a full merge of the awards table), but I don't see enough coverage to support keeping individual articles. All that the news sources stay can be summarized in a short pararaph: festival takes place in PLACE, DATE, FOO-number of films will be shown, including highlight A, B and C. Several winners have been announced beforehand. That's it as far as the news - do note that this coverage is before the event, in a semi-PR form of "come to the festival". There is no coverage of the festival itself, no discussion of awards aftermath, etc. The coverage is not very in-depth, and not very independent, as it seems to rely on quotes and PR-releases of the festival organizers. I doubt any of the past editions can show more coverage then that. I will once again say that I think the festival itself is likely notable (even through it is too minor to be listed in Template:Film festivals), but individual editions of it are most certainly not, and fail Wikipedia:Notability (events), WP:NORG and WP:GNG, whichever we chose. PS. If the consensus here will be to merge, I hope that the creator will also merge other created pages on individual editions of this, rather then waiting for them to be nominated here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do not write "Briefly" and then follow it with a 414 word AFD rationale. Edison (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ale Kino! International Young Audience Film Festival. I don't think the individual years are notable on their own. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Merging all the Festival results into one article would make it overlong. The festival is international, old, under the auspices of International Centre of Films for Children and Young People and many important films take part in it, including Oscar, Golden Globes etc. nominees and winners. Many events like that have their separate articles, including Polish ones. Check Category:Polish Film Awards ceremonies. It's national, the articles are even shorter. And nobody claims it's not notable enough. There are others, too: Category:Sidabrinė gervė, Category:Guldbagge Awards ceremonies, Category:Yeşilçam Award, to name only a few. Yow will find more here: Category:Film awards by continent. I think there's enough space in Wikipedia to describe not only the wildly known things, events etc. but also those less known. They even should be described more detailful, since you may find Oscar, Emmy etc. results in many places, while not speaking Polish and looking for the Ale Kino! results you will only have Wikipedia. (Kyleall (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

"And nobody claims it's not notable enough" - actually, that's why it's at AfD in the first place. All the sources in the article are currently from the festival's website. There needs to be reliable third-party sources outside of its own site, eg news coverage, etc. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are others. Not many international, I agree, but shouldn't Wikipedia be an encyclopedia, describing facts, things, events etc. to people ? It's easy to find Emmy, BAFTA, Cannes results - no need to repeat it. I'm not saying you can't do it, but you don't need it because interested in the subject will find them easly. That's why the presence of festivals less known, like Ale Kino! and others mentioned by me above (and more) is even more important.

But if you need other links, here they are: https://filmfreeway.com/festival/AleKinoFest , http://www.ecfaweb.org/ecfnet/festivals.php?l=Poland&f=36 , http://www.creative-europe-media.eu/festivals/festivals/item/545-international-young-audience-film-festival-ale-kino , http://culture.pl/en/event/the-28th-international-young-audience-film-festival-ale-kino-awards , http://www.csdpoznan.pl/en/ale-kino-film-festival , http://www.mfdb.eu/en/films-poznan_ale_kino_international_childrens_film_festival_y0_f85459 , http://www.poznan.pl/mim/turystyka/en/f,p,12685,12686,12693.html , http://www.wbimages.be/index.php?id=8975&L=1&tx_cfwbavmsearch_pi1%5Buid%5D=556 , http://en.pisf.pl/film-in-poland/festivals , https://www.facebook.com/festiwal.AleKino/ , http://www.imdb.com/event/ev0000745/overview , https://www.youtube.com/user/festiwalalekino (Kyleall (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

First, we are discussing the 33rd Festival, so you should present sources for that one, not the 28th or others. Some of the refs you present are simply not reliable, like Facebook or Youtube. The best one is culture.pl, but again, that's about the wrong festival. And I think it is important to note that culture.pl does not cover the festival regularly. I see they have entry for the 28th festival awards, but not for the others - which again suggests that the festival does not regularly achieve notability. If we spend a lot of time collecting sources, maybe, maybe you could find a few editions that would squeak through, but frankly, I very much doubt that most would. Again, I do not see why we cannot merge the 1-2 sentence of history for each festival (date, location, attendees, occasional near trivia incident) plus the table of awards into the main festival page. If it would really become unvieldy, I think we can have a separate list of awards awarded at that festival page. No information needs to be lost, the only thing we will achieve is merging a bunch of individual mostly-award-table pages into one or two articles. This is the best solution for everyone; I really do not understand why you think having individual tiny pages for each festival would be beneficial to the readers (and anyway, the point is, they are simply not notable, i.e. not encyclopedic by themselves). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I realise neither Facebook nor YouTube are reliable sources. Having given those two I only wanted to highlight its being real and serious event, since nowadays most of them have their profiles on social media. I'm against merging only because it's going to make the article impossibly long and unclear. Now, there are only three or four editions made, but I would like to create more of them. Do you really think it's going to work well ? Other festivals, including many not widly known, have their separate articles, why can't this particular one do ? The second idea, creating separate article about the awards, is better but I still have my doubts about its length. And why do you think it doesn't "deserve" separate pages ? Have you seen ex. Category:Guldbagge Awards ceremonies ? It's even shorter and still have ones. (Kyleall (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is only a reason to consider discussing the appropriateness and deletion of those other pages. The Guldbagge pages don't impress me with their notability, through them being Swedish, perhaps there are sources I don't see. For the AKF, I am pretty sure I don't see much in Polish sources (and since I monitor pl pages on en wiki, well, I am often "picking" on Polish subjects). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Rather than diminishing the number of film festivals which have coverage in the form of year-by-year Wikipedia articles, we should be encouraging contributors to create more such entries. With hundreds of film festivals spotlighted by individual Wikipedia write-ups, only 13 pages (including this 33rd Ale Kino! Festival) can be found within Category:2015 film festivals. While we await annual coverage for the past editions of Kraków Film Festival, Gdynia Film Festival, Warsaw International Film Festival and other Polish film festivals, such as International Festival of Independent Cinema PKO Off Camera or Etiuda&Anima International Film Festival (as well as other nations' festivals), retention should be granted to this well-assembled entry for 2015 which lists 12 awarded film titles, 6 of which link to their own Wikipedia entries. Some film festivals are more-prominently covered in world media outlets (and within Wikipedia) than other festivals, but it should be noted that, in 2015, this 33rd Ale Kino! Festival attracted submissions from at least 13 listed nations. A redirect or deletion would deprive Wikipedia users from accessing almost all such specific data. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please check WP:ITSUSEFUL, and why it is NOT a valid argument in deletions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our Favourite Pop[edit]

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

Unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:53, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pop de Negrești[edit]

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

The orphan article does not meet WP:Notability guidelines and has not been verified for more than a week. Attempts to seek reliable sources to verify the article can be found here ([59]), here ([60]) and here. Borsoka (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't see anything on Google Books, and if they are really notable, one of their name spellings should pop up in a few books (Hungarian or otherwise). Not seeing a single hit, I think this may be a WP:HOAX (the creator is a WP:SPA who went inactive after creating this, which doesn't lend credibility to this, either). Do ping me if sources are found so I can reconsider my vote here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Borsoka. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:22, 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) 09:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adianta School for Leadership and Innovation[edit]

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

None of the independent sources given are particularly reliable, and I can't find any mention of the school on the TU Delft website at all, and only a passing mention on the Nesta website: nothing indicating a proper partnership. The article was created in 2013 by a user who has only created this page and one about the school's founder, Dr. Aditya Dev Sood, which was deleted. There has been no interest in the page since then (it's still an orphan, and hasn't attracted any edits). I also can't find any in-depth coverage of the topic in reliable independent sources, so I sincerely doubt that it passes the GNG. Slashme (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We operate on the assumption that all places of higher learning are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're referring to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools, which says that "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." However, I can't find any reliable source saying that this is actually an independently accredited institution, and tellingly, their website doesn't mention the word "accredited" at all. --Slashme (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a diploma mill and not a legitimate degree awarding institution, one that isn't written about by anyone. Any degree awarding institution has to be recognized by the University Grants Commission or All India Council for Technical Education or be part of a university system with the recognition being awarded to the university. That doesn't appear to be the case here. There's obviously nothing noteworthy here as no one outside of Wikipedia (among reliable sources) has bothered to write about this place. —SpacemanSpiff 02:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails our notability guidelines, with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the dearth of coverage in reliable sources, and that this is probably a shady operation - a diploma mill - without recognition from appropriate Indian agencies.---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could find no reputable sources with significant coverage, at least in English or a quick Google translate of Indian sources. Yvarta (talk) 19:55, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Kyle Sullivan[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:ANYBIO. John from Idegon (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:52, 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Romina palmisano[edit]

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

Venezuelan beauty pageant contestant who did not make any of the top spots in Miss Venezuela 2010. No further claim of notability. Slashme (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable beauty pageant contestant and model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotion and publicity. --Oscar_. (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shigefumi Hino[edit]

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

Neutral, procedural nomination. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 30#Sigehumi Hino for context. BDD (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trifecta (album)[edit]

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

Not notable or referenced Rathfelder (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of street view services[edit]

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

A lot of WP:OR as well as fitting in with multiple criteria WP:NOTDIR #5 sole catalogue; as well as #7 simple listings. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTDIR, just a list of businesses with few secondary sources claiming their WP:ORG notability and far too much link-rot. Ajf773 (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, I think WP:NOTDIR has been misinterpreted for the purposes of this debate. WP:NOTDIR #5 says "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention." Neither product pricing nor availability are mentioned in List of street view services. The article does indicate that some of the maps are free and some are not, but that is different from listing specific prices. WP:NOTDIR #7 does not apply either, since many of the entries in this list do give additional context. Now to address the notability argument. I suggest there is a case for keeping this article under WP:LISTN. How Google StreetView is killing the competition does discuss street view services as a group, namely how Google has maintained its dominance in this group. There's also this list from Lifehacker, so there is sufficient coverage of alternative street view services as a group. Funny enough, Google Web Search has been impeding my efforts to save this article—I've been asked to solve three captchas while searching for sources. Altamel (talk) 04:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTDIR#3 is most applicable in this case. The bulk of the article is list of websites of services, many of which have no notability (and cannot be inhereted) from the article or referenced by primary sources. The links are not articles but external links and WP:EL#ADV applies as well. If there is anything notable in this article, it is a very very small portion of it Ajf773 (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. WP:NOTDIR#3 says "Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses is not encyclopedic." None of that information is present in the article. WP:LISTN specifically explains "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" if the list topic itself is notable, and I argued above that the topic does meet WP:LISTN. Altamel (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NOTDIR is not limited to phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses. External links promoting a website are no different Ajf773 (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please KEEP. This page is the ONLY website I can locate on the Internet that provides alternatives to Googles Streetview service. I use the links for non commercial private hobby related purposes. It needs to stay PLEASE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank954x (talk • contribs) — Frank954x (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- WP:NOTGUIDE Ajf773 (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as complement to Category:Street view services per WP:CLN and index of articles per WP:LISTPURP and (yes, even) WP:NOTDIR. Every complaint lodged above is a fixable problem, and issues such as whether this should be limited to only entries that have articles or what information it should have about each entry are matters for normal editing and discussion to decide. postdlf (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The list needs massive cleanup. I just took a first pass to tone down the WP:LINKFARM. But this meets WP:NLIST and can be done well. Even if it has to be chopped down to list those articles in the category, it's a valid navigational list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:14, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xaphan: Book of Angels Volume 9[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has an entry at AllMusic and a staff review at Scene Point Blank. Woodroar (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above DISEman (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 07:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extrême contemporain[edit]

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

Merged page; but merged for being non-notable and confusing (see Talk:Contemporary French literature#Merger discussion); @Pierre et Condat and V.rota:; non-notable indeed.- Trysta Xude (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 07:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 01:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:49, 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Boogie wit da Hoodie[edit]

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

I'm not sure if a mixtape, with the songs that have been played on the radio but uncharted is sufficient notability. I admit that there are rleiable sources with significant coverage but among them, XXL seems like a close to reliable source, but RevoltTV and CelebrityXO seem more like blogs than reliable sources to me. I also see this source but it doesn't seem better than the prior ones. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per WP:MUSICIAN. Relies heavily on WP:SELFPUB for references (facebook?), materials, and inclusions. Nikto wha? 06:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 07:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Holcroft[edit]

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

This self-published author unfortunately doesn't seem to have been the subject of enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to satisfy our notability criteria. One of the article's references suggests that his uncle, Anthony Holcroft, is likely notable, but there are very few sources for Christopher Holcroft himself. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable self-published writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 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. We decide consensus on the basis of policy based opinions. and the keep arguments are in total disregard of WP:RS and other policy. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joelle Schmitz[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Joelle Schmitz

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

Does not meet WP:BIO, not notable, seems like self-promotion, several citations are dead links, and several reference her own website joelleschmitz.com and not credible secondary sources 1337 Tibet (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added valid references to the page and also updated the broken links. Google Scholar notes this individual has published several academic articles that have been cited by others. I also added a USA Today op-ed that has been cited by a large number of people in various works if you look at Google. Given the fact that her published work is often cited this individual seems to have notability in her niche and her work resonates with others. Matthew (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The USA Today op-ed piece has not been cited by a large number of people. It has been cited 4 times by students. Much of the so-called "published" academic articles appear to be conference papers that have been uploaded to academia.com, not published in peer-reviewed journals. A thorough search of all of my university's resources showed no publications by this person in any academic journals, only the USA Today op-ed piece. Many of the linked articles on this page seem to be simple campus news items (e.g., 'welcome to campus' and 'so-and-so will be attending such-and-such conference', etc). There isn't significant coverage of this person in credible secondary sources, nor does she have a significant record of scholarly publication showing her to be a notable expert in this field, nor is there evidence of her work being widely cited by others.1337 Tibet (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per WP:GNG Barbara.steinberg (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an academic that does not pass the notability requirements for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the references found by Matthew, there are several found in a Google Books search. Article needs expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Hmlarson, I disagree that there are 'several' references to this person in a Google books search. While one might get a large number of raw hits there, the context matters. The first hit, for example, to the book 'Run Like a Girl: How Strong Women Make Happy Lives' is a link to a mention in a book that has nothing to do with her supposed notability as an expert on regulation and pertains to her being a giant slalom skier (she doesn't appear to be notable for that either). Four are footnote citations to a single conference paper that she was the secondary author of with Dr. Kalypso Nicolaïdis, who actually seems to be a genuinely notable scholar. Schmitz has indeed made one contribution to a book called "Redefining Europe" but that is hardly significant. The rest seem like false hits not referencing her at all. In the context of academia, these are very run-of-the-mill accomplishments that any grad. student from a tier one institution would be expected have, but that does not in itself make them notable people.1337 Tibet (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Nominating editor is attempting to add another !vote. It's clear this article could use improved referencing and a list of publications, not deletion. Hmlarson (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that there aren't sufficient publications by this person and significant references in credible secondary sources to demonstrate notability for this person because this person simply has not made a significant impact in their discipline.1337 Tibet (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. Not necessary to say it again and again masked as a !vote. Hmlarson (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmlarson this is a debate, not a vote.1337 Tibet (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Thanks for removing it. Hmlarson (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Publications have been added. Links are to peer-reviewed articles and peer-reviewed chapters in books and work commissioned by the Canadian Prime Minister’s office, the European Commission and the US Department of Commerce. Individual’s initiation of two policy-changing national conferences established by WP:RS. Notable by WP:GNG. Nick Darling (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The two links given to the two articles that she authored/co-authored are not to peer-reviewed publications. One appears merely to be a working paper (not published in a peer-reviewed journal), while the second article is a co-authored conference paper and seems only to have appeared in the respective conference proceedings. Working papers and conference proceedings are grey literature, not peer-reviewed articles. In any event, the citation rates for these are far too low to meet WP:SCHOLAR criterion 1.

The citation mentioning her in the dedication of the book "Case in Point" by Cosentino reads:

"Thanks owed to all the students from around the world who contributed thoughts and case questions. Special thanks are owed to Agnes Noel, Basil Waite, Deepa Gupta, Gonzolo Zubieta, Jeremy Neuner, Joelle Schmitz, Lillian Zhao, Michael Zhang, Mukund Jain, Tatum Bell III, Swami Swaminathan, and Veronica Chau."

Interestingly, this book appears not to be related to her topic of supposed expertise (regulation) but rather on interview preparation. In any event, there is no context given for what her contribution might have been to the book, just "special thanks to..." and seems entirely trivial.

As to your other point that she initiated "two policy-changing national conferences," what policies were changed as a direct result of her work? If true, oughtn't there be third-party sources arguing that impact? As it is, I don't see that claim supported here or outside of Wikipedia.1337 Tibet (talk) 12:37, 28

Keep - WP:GNG pass due to coverage across multiple sources including WP:RS. Recognized resource. 66.87.81.95 (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Fails WP:GNG because it fails WP:RS. For sources to be considered reliable within the meaning of WP:RS, sources need to be independent such that they have no interest in the topic they are covering per WP:IS. Her coverage in campus news articles at McGill, Harvard, the U. of Minnesota, and the U. of Denver are institutions where she was either a student, a staff member, or are regarding a conference that the university itself was hosting.1337 Tibet (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I respectfully disagree with your opinions and findings. Nick Darling (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin I am seeing suspicious activity on this AfD. Accounts which have not edited for more than 3 years are suddenly coming to vote here? It is very clear that some offline canvassing is going on. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mintex[edit]

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

Still nothing at all actually suggesting the needed convincing independent notability as my thorough searches noticeably found nothing at all, and being from 1908 is not inherited notability at all as this would still need better substance, something of which I'm not seeing. SwisterTwister talk 02:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A brand much of whose history was under one company (BBA Aviation) befor it passed to another (TMD Friction). Searches return mentions of their former sponsorship of the National Rally Championship but I am not seeing the substantial independent coverage which would be needed for an article. AllyD (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails GNG. Nordic Nightfury 10:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a company known only for making an item as obscure as a brake pad seldom generates enough press to pass WP:CORP. This is one of those times. Farmer Brown (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Erycom[edit]

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

Still nothing actually confidently convincing for the needed independent notability and my searches have found only a few links. SwisterTwister talk 02:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails NMUSIC & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Bay Resorts[edit]

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

Yes, there's information and sources but there's also still an overall advert environment and my own searches at News have found exactly this, either exact PR or hinting PR with it either being republished or simply PR speak. I'm not seeing the confident convincing this would need to be acceptable, mere awards are still questionable when it comes to removing the advert environment and questionability overall. I had been watching this article for some time and frankly it should've been nominated sooner. Inviting DGG who has a long history with these kinds of articles. SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The usual reason: borderline notability plus clear promotionalism , which in combination is an excellent reason for deletion . Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are some hints of notability, but the overwhelming about of PR-type sources (awards pages, trivial mentions, etc.) hint that this is indeed an nothing more than a promotional entry. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 11:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cishet[edit]

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

As per WP:NOTDIC Irakakiku (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on expanding the article to make it less dictionary-like. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},^{(unless this is on my own talk page)} otherwise I may not see your reply) 04:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the article stands at the moment, it is simply a dictionary entry. I don't see that there is much space to expand this into an entire article. So delete, though if MorbidEntree improves the article as he promises, then the article may be keepable. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. At maximum, it worth mentioning if in Cisgender article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I researched all over for sources and content to add to the article, but found nothing better than tumblr rants and information posts. I can't expand the article any further using reliable sources, so I say delete as well. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},^{(unless this is on my own talk page)} otherwise I may not see your reply) 17:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree on delete and on including a small blurb in a related article. Sickhypnotic (talk) 15:27, 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. Sandstein 07:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper-Spherical Search Algorithm[edit]

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

Yet another metaheuristic (created on July 17). The usual WP:GNG and quality/independence of sources concerns (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State transition algorithm). —Ruud 00:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has no independent sources, and I couldn't find any myself. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources outside the author's own body of work, undisclosed COI/self-promotion implied by SPA's username. Jergling (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:29, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 13:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Hussain[edit]

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

Insignificant person. Ethanlu121 (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-1. If you want to nominate my article for deletion you are going to have to give a better explanation than two words. I've a good mind to just scrub the banner. 2. He is clearly not an insignificant person, he has received tons of coverage in the media. It's hardly in dispute that he is in fact notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave8899 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources, including the UN. Ethanlu121, please read WP:GNG before submitting an AfD. Jergling (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't take much searching to determine that the subject is notable. There appears to be sufficient coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. The nomination does not appear to comply with WP:BEFORE.
That having been said, the article is woefully short on actual references to back "facts" that are clearly derogatory. I've deleted one especially salacious sentence that cites no source and have requested a cite for another. This article needs a lot of work.
Dave8899: Per WP:OWN, it is not your article. And it's good that you did not "just scrub the banner." We have to assume that the nomination was made in good faith. The page, in its current state, is a swamp of potential WP:BLP issues. Just because the subject appears to be notable, that does not justify the appearance of unsourced derogatory information. It needs serious attention. David in DC (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article4450320.ece

Times is a reliable source that corroborates the Mail, information is not derogatory/salaciousDave8899 (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, editors are under no obligation to look for sources re the suggested WP:BEFORE (although it is considered to be good form to do so:)} prior to nominating an article, rather WP:BURDEN prevails so editors may remove any unsourced statements, this is especially important withWP:BLP. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:32, 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.

[COSIC-1] N. Mouha, B. Mennink, A. Van Herrewege, D. Watanabe, B. Preneel, and I. Verbauwhede, "Chaskey: An Efficient MAC Algorithm for 32-bit Microcontrollers," In Selected Areas in Cryptography, 21st Annual International Workshop, SAC 2014, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 8781, A. Joux, and A. M. Youssef (eds.), Springer-Verlag, pp. 306-323, 2014: "An Efficient MAC Algorithm for 32-bit Microcontrollers", 2014

[ConnectedWorld-2] Connected World, Balancing Device Security and Design Cost, November 2014

[3] EE Journal, Asserting Machine Control in the IoT, August 2015

[4] EE Journal, All About Messaging Protocols, April 2015

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]