Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 July	26 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. Jujutacular (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Zidanšek[edit]

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

I see no notability here per NSPORTS or Project Tennis. No main draws on the WTA Tour, No wins as a Jr in the jr grand slams, No wins in $35,000+ events in the tennis minor leagues. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here today, gone Tamara. Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines and the usual GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As was already pointed out:

This player is the No. 3 in her country

The player has competed in the singles and doubles events at the junior 2014 US Open and the junior 2015 French Open, and won one game in the singles at RG in 2015.
The player has competed in and won matches in $50,000 tournaments in 2016^[1]
The player has won 9 Singles and 2 Doubles titles on the ITF tour
The player's inactivity on the main tour can mainly be attributed to her age.

F1lover22 talk 00:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our guidelines are pretty darned lenient. The main pro tour is the WTA Tour. All you have to do is compete in the main draw of that tour and you are notable. Just like Baseball. Just compete, not even win. Then you have the minor leagues of $50,000 or above events for the ladies, or the Challenger tour for the men. These are the minor leagues and you have to win in either singles or doubles. These aren't shown on tv. Then you have the minor-minor league tennis events...zillions of them. $35,000 and below. These wins are never notable. Also being on the Olympics team or being in Fed Cup or Davis Cup automatically qualifies a player. Again no wins required... just representing your nation is enough. As a jr. you need to win won of the 4 majors or be ranked #3 jr. This player is none of the above and I've tried to explain this to the editor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete it so.... F1lover22 talk 00:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what could happen is to put it into your sandbox/userspace in case she does merit it someday. I say there is a good chance she might. Then it doesn't have to be recreated and you could re-insert it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to the article creator's space. The subject of the article doesn't meet the requirements for inclusion yet. That may change during six months in draft space. If the creator doesn't want to curate the article, then Userfy to my space. I can watch it. Scottyoak2 (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have the article saved at User:F1lover22/sandbox/Tamara Zidanšek for future use
F1lover22 talk 06:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (or userfy). --Wolbo (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 02:53, 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. czar 02:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albert's Diamond Jewelers[edit]

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

Jewellery company with several local mentions and doing good charitable things but nothing here indicates any notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. There article itself makes no claims to notability. It is a retail store with two locations, one of many thousands of similar non-notable businesses. MB 04:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as examining this till found nothing at all for convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for essentially the same reasons as I discussed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Corinne_Jewelers. Arguably, a company 111 years old might be notable, but I'd like to see better proof of significant coverage in more reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, as with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Corinne_Jewelers, this article comes off without a meaningful claim of notability and as overwhelmingly promotional in tone. I don't see anything in the article or in a Google search that would support notability. Alansohn (talk) 00:42, 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 01:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RENÓ[edit]

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

Auto-CV of a rapper from Ghana with 1 (?) single. Speedy tag reverted by editor. Per WP:NMG/WP:BIO. Gunnex (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence whatsoever of notability. Aust331 (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find anything at all - but admittedly his name is not very distinctive (not even his full name "Reginald Adjei") and I'm searching from the US. In any case, there is nothing here to show notability as per WP:MUSICIAN. LaMona (talk) 21:57, 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. As noted by others, this is a timeline, not a directory, and as such does not fall under WP:NOTIINFO. It has also been noted that this doesn't fall under WP:SYNTH, either, since all the info in the article is only confirmed facts and not interpretations. See also this related AfD. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 16:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of Google Street View[edit]

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

WP is not a directory, not a collection of indiscriminate information. This page is WP:SYNTH. Even Google itself does not have this kind of pages. Wikipedia is not in business to document timelines of each and every move of Google products. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not SYNTH, nor is it a directory. It's just a detailed bit of cartographic history. Andrew D. (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is WP:SYNTH mainly from primary sources. It is not a "cartographic history" it is a dubious self-written history of Google Maps. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it still isn't synth. Synth is when you combine facts to arrive at a novel conclusion. Per WP:NOTSYNTH, "SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition". Andrew D. (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes it is WP:SYNTH: the facts from primary source are combined to make a false impression about the state of the coverage. There is no secndary sources which directly discuss this particular topic in depth, hence original research it is. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - What false impression? Lem still fails to state what the supposed synthesis is. And there are certainly plenty of secondary sources which discuss the history of Street View in detail such as Inside Google Street View, Going Places: A History of Google Maps with Street View and Google Street View maps Greenland. Andrew D. (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is going to be a long list of every place, town, city, metropolis, village, hamlet and a few more. That will make it an indiscriminate list of everything, falling foul of WP:NOT and coming close to WP:OR when not sourced. By now, most sources already fail WP:RS. The Banner talk 21:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another indiscriminate and hopelessly useless list. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended, but the notion of this being a "useless list" is countered by the 40,022 page views the page has received in the last thirty days, a significant number. At any rate, the article is obviously useful for some of Wikipedia's readers. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pace also, but all that 'proves' is that if you put something on the internet, someone will read it. No quality need be imputed. _Muffled ^Pocketed

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satellite map images with missing or unclear data. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_Google_Street_View. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Google Street View, while most of this article is OR, all that needs to be done is to remove the timeline of introductions as the rest is sourced anyway. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If you delete "inroductions" there is exactly 4 statements, sourced from Google press-releases about features, which are already in Google Street View#History and features. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - An informative list of updates to an important and popular product. This was discussed four years ago and the result was to keep. Pristino (talk) 07:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There is something to say both for keep and delete. It is the timeline of introductions that makes the article an indiscriminate list of every human settlement existing on earth. But the section before that, about Google Street View itself, are indeed worth keeping. The Banner talk 10:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not WP:SYNTH as it provides only facts, not interpretation, and its not indiscriminate as it has a very clear scope (what Google Street view covers, and from when). There's certainly lots of scope to improve the article and its sourcing, but it covers a viable topic. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nick-D. Agree that this is not a synthesis, as the article primarily combines confirmed facts without drawing unsupported conclusions from those facts. If there are specific sentences in the article in violation of WP:SYNTH, point them out or delete them through the normal editorial process. Altamel (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is about the countries and territories available on Google Street View. Diretor Adobe (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not a directory,but it's a timeline, and that's not forbidden by Wikipedia. There are timelines everywhere. Also people need to know availables countries and territories in Google Street View, included future. --Humberto del Torrejón (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and per Nick-D, this article is the result of a hard work by the people that are following this great service every day since it started, and it was created just for reducing the size of Google Street View article. - EugεnS¡m¡on 07:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Factual information, well defined scope, cleanly organized, information not available elsewhere, highly used and referenced based on statistics. Svltr (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For same reasons above. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep I check this page almost daily...it's the only source I know with very specific updates on new locations for Google Street View. AnimAlu (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per reasons above. Personally, I second AnimAlu's comment quite ardently too.--T1980 (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is not the only timeline article on Wikipedia, and is on par with timelines for other technological products and services, such as Timeline of Apple Inc. products. I agree with AnimAlu and T1980 as well, and as an urban planning researcher, I'll admit that I do check this page daily. I would also like to reiterate Pristino's point that four years ago we already had this discussion and the consensus was to keep the page. The one rule which I'd like to propose for the page (and which I imagine will keep it more controlled, less sprawling, and less susceptible to being proposed for deletion) is to list only updates done by Google itself. Street View accepts a lot of user-submitted 360 images, so the map and list would be more representative of Google's output if limited to just those updates. TheAckademie (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a timeline, not a directory, so that policy doesn't count. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It looks like the overall coverage and specific additions have gotten enough coverage for a claim to notability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:21, 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. czar 02:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMS Messenger[edit]

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

Non-notable software. No sign of any coverage for this software. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not only lacks any evidence of notability but is also way too soon to have garnered any notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this thread sufficient to qualify for a WP:CSD#G7 (author requested) deletion? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. Store listing does not suggest notability on its own. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 04:28, 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. czar 02:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MicroAssist[edit]

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

apparently minor developer; single state impact only DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:AUD. The company has received local coverage, but source searches are only providing mentions in sources with a larger geographic scope, such as this. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I meant to comment earlier, I frankly consider this PROD material and, summarily, there's nothing at all minimally convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 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. czar 02:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff J. Boss[edit]

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

promotional article written by an spa on non notable author. The books are each in only 16libraries ; the refs are local and trivial. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also concur, searches and examinations found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 02:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 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. Jujutacular (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Sweeney[edit]

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

Biography of a filmmaker who is not yet notable. There are no reliable secondary sources, that is, all the existing sources are either directly affiliated with Sweeney, with the exception of the link to IMDB which does not meet the criteria for reliable sources. Having performed a Google search for better sources, I fail to find any secondary sources at all. bonadea contributions talk 20:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 06:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I declined the request for WP:CSD because it did not technically meet the criteria; an assertion of notability does exist in the article. However, I don't see that the subject actually is notable at this time; the film the assertion is based on is a short film and no other significant claim exists, so I don't see that the subject meets WP:FILMMAKER. No prejudice against later creation of the article, if and when notability is established. Frank | talk 14:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is all sourced to websites he controls except the IMDb listing. And IMDb has to goal of cateloguing everything. Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscriminate listing. Even if the film were notable, that would not make him notable, and just circulating through film shows does not make a film notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Rezab[edit]

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

This is a simple violation of Wikipedia:AUTO and Wikipedia:NPOV. It was exclusively created by a user with the same name as the subject of the article. It also does not make a good case for Wikipedia:BIO, as none of the references proclaim the notability of the subject. Pianoman320 (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly an autobiography. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I understand that there is a rule - but it's only discouraged. Wiki rules say: If you create an autobiography, you must have no promotional intent - which it did not, and must be willing to accept it being neutralized (I do accept it - it is very similar to the Czech Wikipedia page which I did not create). I do not get the point that the references do not proclaim notability - which of the articles, which of the points specifically? Many other members of Forbes 30 under 30 group with similar accomplishments are on Wikipedia - for example Brian_Wong and countless others. I tried to be objective, not promotional, and source every single line I wrote - as I knew there is a bias. If anyone feels to edit it - please do so indeed! Bio rules also say: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." The Ernst&Young Awards and Forbes 30 under 30 awards should count. And again, I welcome any addition to the page itself. Jan.Rezab^talk 22:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with full force and vigore. This person is a non-notable business person. People should never create articles on themselves, and we should made it automatic grounds for deletion. If someone else has not felt it worth creating an article on you, than you are not notable enough for an article. If you really are, someone will create one. This rule keeps people like my friend who anonymously ran an online Harry Potter fan fiction forum and thought she was clearly notable because of it from creating an article on herself. Not autobiographies. If you are really notable go get an actual book publisher to publisher your autobiography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, its not a rule - it's discouraged - not a rule. Non-notable? Click on any link above, awards, achievements, quotations, 250 book mentions? There are so many people on Wiki with nowhere near that. I get that soft rule (not a hard rule) - but why not, if I quoted everything well? I was not aware of the autobioghraphical rules before I obviously did it, but realized each line would have to be perfectly quoted from outside sources.

Quoting the entire policy with commentary: Jan.Rezab^talk 18:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you create an autobiography, you must have no promotional intent ( Jan.Rezab Doesn't have) and must be willing to accept it being neutralized ( Jan.Rezab No problem) if it is not neutral, or even deleted if it comes to that. If you do turn out to be notable, you must expect the article to stay ( Jan.Rezab Please rate this, again, many fellow Forbes 30 under 30 folks are here) —you cannot just get it deleted because you are not happy with it. Our neutral point of view policy is absolute and non-negotiable ( Jan.Rezab This is perfect!), and all encyclopedic topics are fair game for Wikipedia.

Finally, you should also consider the time and effort expended by the Wikipedia community, as well as the impact to your reputation. Even if you do manage to pull off a neutral, verifiable autobiography, the very fact that so many autobiographies have not been that way has trained Wikipedians to expect the opposite ( Jan.Rezab So it seems...) —and hence editors may feel they are wasting their time or effort if they become provoked by the fact it's still an autobiography, regardless of policy compliance. This may also result in a reputation hit not only because you violated the guideline, but also because editors may feel that you have wasted their effort. ( Jan.Rezab I hope I have not...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan.rezab (talk • contribs) 18:52, 27 July 2016‎

Delete. It's obviously an autobiography used to promote the achievements of the individual and increase brand exposure of the currently operating companies. Without having a third-party publisher, it subjects the article to WP:NOTOPINION, and therefore, is not objective and is clearly exemplified in the "Public Speaking & Conferences" section. The "Socialbakers" section borders on WP:NOTADVOCATE as the underlying objective is to showcase the success of the company. Additionally, the mention of the "Socially Devoted" benchmark is WP:PROMOTION as it's attempting to garner attention to a measurement that was created under a privately held enterprise. That being said, if the content of this section were re-written in a more objective manner, then it could be seen fit to stand. Within the "History" section, the statement that Socialbakers has raised "more than 30 million" is not factual; if anything, the exact amount of money raised should be stated. Overall, I'd suggest template:ad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejames11 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 29 July 2016‎

I fixed the funding, the third party publishers are mostly there, right? I already talk about the Socially Devoted award below. Could you guys actually edit the page itself? Jan.Rezab^talk 18:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could, but why would we if we think the article should be deleted? Expecting volunteers to help you clean up after yourself when writing advertising is totally unrealistic. Grayfell (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll get to Rezab's comments in a second, but only in extreme cases should an article be deleted based on intent. In this case, sources do not meet notability guidelines, and are mostly flimsy PR and churnalism used as WP:BOMBARDMENT. Many of the sources don't even mention Rezab at all. The Forbes thing is puff. It's a listicle which is widely abused to suggest notability, but is a very poor indicator. It's divided into 20 subcategories, making for 600 entries a year, and reliable comments about the list itself are thin. The article could be used as a source itself, but it says almost nothing. Just mentioning the listing is not informative, and further supports that this is based more on self-promotion than being neutral and informative.

Rezab's good-faith comments are noted, but this is a volunteer encyclopedia, not a free PR service. The existence of thinly-veiled advertising like this diminished the quality and reputation of the encyclopedia, and therefore diminishes the work we all do. The article definitely has serious advertising and promotional problems. Claiming that you have no promotional intent is unprovable and in this case, so unbelievable it's hard not to find it insulting. There are too many vague but flattering claims and promotional tidbits included here to accept that. This article reads like advertising, and either you cannot see it because you are not impartial, or you do see it but are pretending otherwise, which is even worse. Either way, this is a great example of why autobiographies are so strongly discouraged. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Forbes 30 under 30 notability - I leave that with you guys to review - I was the featured in one of the 20 categories, and the process was quite massive. Re. Socially Devoted - Try searching for Socially Devoted on LinkedIn for example, 2200 people worldwide use it as a "skill" and list it as an achievements, there are quite many news mentions of it and in that part of the industry, it is actually considered an industry standard quite quite high awareness. All of this is easily verifyable. There are third-party publishers everywhere in the article, right? I tried mostly fact-based elements. I understand now why this is discouraged, very clearly. What do you suggest we do with the article, Delete? or is there any way to fix it? Jan.Rezab^talk 18:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said delete and that's what I meant. There is no question mark at the end of that. This is just spam dressed in corporate buzzwords. LinkedIn isn't a reliable source at all. Not even close. The "Socially Devoted" thing is not a claim to notability, it's a product you're trying to promoting through Wikipedia, and right now it just looks like a gimmick sourced to press releases. Grayfell (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Socially Devoted - its actually not a product, but was launched as an open standard. Its not a product, you can't "buy it", in fact, it was adopted by many organization and the underlying metric hsa been implemented in the Media Rating Councils guidelines (which I do link). I understand all your points. I do not use LinkedIn for any sourcing in my article - I just used it as an example, and while its not a source, the fact that so many people have used this is a sign of its adoption. People across countries and industries use it to define their skills. Again, not a "product" - an open standard (anyone can use, adopt it, it is not trademarked by the company for that purpose) Jan.rezab (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's something you created that you are trying to 'sell'. The adoption of this standard benefits you, and is closely associated with your company and your reputation. It's a "product" in that sense, and that's the sense that matters. What is the Media Rating Council? Nobody else seems to care about that. Please stop trying to promote your company and your ideas on this deletion discussion! Stop doing that anywhere else on Wikipedia, also. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the Media Rating Council? Only the most important institution when it comes to making decisions regarding standards. They defined viewability on the web, they defined video, mobile, and many other advertising standards incl. Viewable Impression and others. Why these guys do not have a Wikipedia page really escapes me. I don't believe promoting ideas on a wiki deletion thread does a lot of work, I was just trying to justify some of the notes - thats all. On other points, I disagree, but you make a point of view. If only someone looked into it a bit more. Jan.rezab (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly promotional. Should it come back created by a neutral third party I might be inclined to give it more credence. I admit that the unbounded and continued promotion by the creator/autobiographer, in spite of clear statements relating to WP policy, make this very hard to accept. The same person has created an extensive article for the company. It amazes me that someone is unable to understand the deep insult that these articles deliver to those of us who see WP as a source of neutral information, not for personal promotion. I think this should be deleted under WP:PROMO. I also think we ought to watch these articles because anyone so unable to read WP's culture would also be likely to hire out the promotion if it fails under his own name. Honestly, it's offensive. LaMona (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In case the article Jan Rezab is (shortened and) kept, I suggest to merge it with unsourced article Redboss. JanSuchy (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dublin Bus. Consensus was that this does not deserve its own article. Since a summary of the content has already been merged to the Dublin Bus article and delete voters were not opposed to deletion, I'm redirecting it there to preserve the page history. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Ghost Bus Tour[edit]

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

Promotional article for a dubiously notable tourist attraction. Does not seem to meet WP:GNG. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- ADVERT. It may claim to be a theatrical performance; if so, it is a NN one. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dublin Bus, with a short explanation on the service. I note the article was decently written at one point, but appeared to have been taken over by users inserting original research/advertising. Nordic Nightfury 10:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Dublin Bus. Some sources exist, but the overall depth of coverage appears to fall short of the requirements for independent notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Nordic Nightfury. Class455fan1 (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dublin Bus per Northamerica1000. There are a couple sources out there and this could be a sentence or two in the Dublin Bus article. The subject itself isn't notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non-notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for independent article. Kierzek (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only and entirely as there's still no actual substance overall. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gladiators (2008 UK TV series). MBisanz ^talk 13:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators (2008 UK TV series) Series One[edit]

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

Also nominating Gladiators (2008 UK TV series) Series Two, both per WP:CRUFT. Laun chba ller 17:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails CRUFT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just not noteworthy for a stand alone article and source issues. Kierzek (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gladiators (2008 UK TV series) (to prevent future attempts) or delete with a stern message left. — Wylie pedia 04:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as both of these suffice. SwisterTwister talk 19:33, 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. Hut 8.5 21:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Young Actors Theatre (Islington)[edit]

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

Non notable theatre, The entire article is written in a promotional tone and the only sources I'm finding on Google are mentions (IMHO the article should be blown up and rewritten however I may be the minority on that), Anyway fails ORG & GNG, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and ORG per nominator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a long-standing article that has undergone some notably poor editing throughout its time, but none that included significant sources. (And I could not find sources beyond brief listings in lists of "Private art schools" in the UK.) Much of the editing has been promotional, adding "notable alumni" and such, but none of it sourced. As a local private school, and without sources, there is nothing to show notability. LaMona (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I discovered that the first sentence is copied word for word from the official website. Unfortunately did not discover sources that supported notability. Gab4gab (talk) 12:05, 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. Hut 8.5 21:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Counterparts Lite[edit]

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

Non-notable; no reliable coverage whatsoever. — Esquivalience (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up blog entries and incidental mentions, but no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 14:53, 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 16:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable and not even a stub; two sentences; promotion with link to try it out. Kierzek (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google search turns up string editing app by Michel Fortin created around 26 May 2014;[1] Twitter post says Fortin added support for XLIFF 4 Jun 2014.[2] No evidence that this application is widely used for translation/localization (the purpose of XLIFF); but see blogger using CPL. I suspect that translation systems would internally support string editing (that's what translation is all about). Some posts suggest CPL is one of many editors used by non-professionals; see comment "But many need a tool for John Doe the unknown student translator on fiverr. For sure the large 10x as expensive professional translating companies already support it. – Lothar Aug 13 '15".[3] I'm not seeing any secondary sources that tout the app. Current content sounds in advertising and need not be saved in a redirect. I'm not seeing WP:DUE for the XLIFF article, so I deleted the WL there. Glrx (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Mardi Gras in the United States#Arkansas. Obviously if anyone wants to use any of the content in the target article which isn't there already then that is fine. Hut 8.5 21:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka Gras[edit]

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

Local event with only local references DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect for now to Eureka Springs, Arkansas#Events, where this festival is already described; or alternatively to Mardi Gras in the United States#Arkansas~~, a section of that article that does not yet exist, but will soon~~. In addition to many local Eureka Springs sources, there's a substantial recent article in the Springfield News-Leader that describes how Eureka Springs is becoming a "Mardi Gras mecca" with a month-long celebration.[4] Probably not yet enough to warrant a separate article, but certainly enough sources to support its inclusion in other appropriate articles. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:29, 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 16:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mardi Gras in the United States#Arkansas as everything has already been merged. MB 04:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mardi Gras in the United States § Arkansas, where this is presently covered at. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Busuioc[edit]

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

The lack of independent sources kind of does this in. Yeah, we have some links to some awards the subject has won - the only problem is that those point to the sites of the people handing out the awards. Not exactly independent sourcing there. Plus, we have an admission that this is a promotional autobiography. I would suggest to Miss Busuioc that she first wait to be covered by independent sources and perhaps allow others to write her autobiography at that point. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your message, what kind of independent sources do you mean? May be I can ask for confirmation from other persons, or how to make my biography on wikipedia realistic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldstallion (talk • contribs) 08:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Goldstallion (and others, so folks know the question's been addressed), just left you a note over on your talk page to give some explanation of what Wikipedia considers legitimate sources, and point you toward more reading on the topic. Hope that helps! Welcome! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article very much shows why we strongly discourage people from writing Wikipedia articles about themselves. A Wikipedia article is not supposed to be a CV and, at least currently, this article decidedly is one. As it happens, it is an extremely good CV for an operatic soprano who is not yet 30, but it not only does not clearly demonstrate the subjec's notabililty but actually hides the achievements that could make her notable in Wikipedia terms among far more that definitely do not. For instance, competition prizes are undoubtedly a useful way for up-and-coming musicians to demonstrate their quality, but very few of them help at all towards notabiity - in fact, the few that do are so well-known that it would be pointless to describe them as prestigious. What do usually count are leading roles with world-famous opera companies - the subject's recent Mimi in La Boheme with Los Angeles Opera may well count (but I would prefer to defer to editors from WikiProject Opera on that point) and has certainly generated quite a bit of notice. It is quite possible that her Cio Cio San at the Teatro Comunale di Bologna would also count towards notability, and even if it does not, I would be surprised if the subject does not do enough within the next two or three years ro make her notable. But I am not sure that she is yet. PWilkinson (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Had to remove a large chuck of text as it was copyright violation. The references do not indicate any notability yet. It needs concert reviews, possible recordings and less emphasis on any competitions where it is unclear if she has won them or simply participated. Karst (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable operatic soprano.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing substantially enough to suggest independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that this has been hanging around a while already but I'd appreciate seeing one more relist to see if sourcing can establish notability--at the moment I'm genuinely unsure. If it doesn't, to me this seems like a candidate for a soft delete, so the entry is easily retrievable if sources and a motivated editor materialize. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 16:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:03, 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One point less on the sky (2016)[edit]

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

Created by COI editor, a school film project that won an award as such - does not appear to meet WP:NFILM Melcous (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no objection to recreation once the film gains more coverage. There's just not enough out there to justify inclusion and the award looks to be minor as far as Wikipedia is concerned. This isn't meant to slight the film or the award, just that Wikipedia tends to be very selective with their awards and most film festivals awards don't give even partial notability unless the festival itself is notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor film with a minor award. Does not meet NFILM. --Randykitty (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per this Spanish-language film having the Spanish language coverage to meet WP:NF: El Dia, Canarias7, El Diario, Cabildo de Gran Canaria, La Voz, Creativa Canaria, and some others.[5][6] Even though the coverage is related to it being a student film and it being chosen to screen and about it wining awards, coverage is coverage... and as it is not released in English, English-language coverage is unlikely. Melcous, Tokyogirl79 I believe it has coverage to meet WP:NF. And Randykitty, notability here has nothing to do with whether or not the 2 awards may be minor.... it's the resulting coverage. Thanks. Article needs work, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just worried that all we really have is coverage about the film screening and winning a student award, nothing really beyond that. If we had a review then that'd put me a little more at ease. I'm not opposed to this being kept though, FWIW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as I'm still not seeing enough substance for convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. student awards only. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 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. czar 02:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Caslione[edit]

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

Nothing here that establishments notability. Baum des Lichtes (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable run of the mill businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 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 10:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is not significantly notable. Meatsgains (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant coverage in RS found. MB 05:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Amelio[edit]

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

I looked pretty hard, and can't see how this person could pass GNG or other policies. Open to suggestions if others think otherwise. Baum des Lichtes (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I was a bit surprised by this nomination of a known name, who, as the article External Links show, also has written an Opinion piece for the International Herald Tribune / New York Times. However I can also appreciate that the article is largely a list and references to CEO appointments at Lenovo, IBM, NCR etc. (and most recently Avnet, as I have added). These can perhaps be read as simply routine announcements rather than substantial coverage, but I think their aggregation is just about sufficient. AllyD (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was CEO of Lenovo, which establishes notability for me. If you google his name and Lenovo, there are dozens of news articles about his tenure there. MB 05:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CEOs of really major companies can safely be assumed to be notable . Lenovo qualifies. I reorganized the article a little, as it had some characteristics of PR-style writing. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 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 Delete. Given the limited participation the bar to recreating this is low. Hut 8.5 21:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Ronak[edit]

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

No indication of notability and one of the references is IMDb (which is not reliable) and other doesn't discuss the subject. Fuortu (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One film credit doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR. Maybe his upcoming release will catapult him into notability. Maybe not. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Draft:Sai Ronak appears to be a better version of an article on Sai Ronak; but it still doesn't demonstrate his notability. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:27, 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. Hut 8.5 21:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Onaji Stephen Onche[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC as none of the secondary sources mention Onche by name - the awards cited were given to films, rather than to specific people involved in those films. I've not been able to find any reliable sources that confirm Onche's role in Oshimiri as being significant. McGeddon (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The recipient of Africa Movie Academy Award for Best Visual Effects 2016 was Onaji Stephen Onche.

Onaji Stephen Onche sometimes only refer to himself as Onaji Stephen for short as his other name is Onche. In opening and end credit of movies he has done, trailer, social media and other vital documents, he writes his name in full.^[2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by ToviaNelson (talk • contribs) 14:32, 8 July 2016‎

— Note to closing admin: ToviaNelson (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

References

^ "$50,000 Szeged". Retrieved 26 July 2016.
^ https://postimg.org/image/65m3tvuup

Keep has clearly edited and created visual effects in a number of movies including Oshimiri which while not notable worldwide, is notable here in Nigeria. Most of those Movies can be found Online in Youtube in it's receptive owner's channel and his name Onaji Stephen Onche clearly written as either the editor or Effects or both — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emeka Enyiocha (talk • contribs) 09:07, 9 July 2016‎— Emeka Enyiocha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Checkuser note: Emeka Enyiocha is a Confirmed sock puppet of ToviaNelson. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ToviaNelson.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 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 10:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything regarding him. Even the award is unconfirmed (an image of a letter allegedly from the Africa Film Academy, and that only a nomination). No hits for him on the African Film Academy Awards site. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I will gladly change to Weak keep, if it can be established in reliable source that he was the visual artist that won (or nominated) the AMAA award, and there is at least some coverage on him too. For now, the activities of the author on Wikipedia+COI possibility will make me tend towards delete. Darreg (talk) 00:01, 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 08:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noe Vazquez[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:ENT. As near as I can find the subject won some minor competition but has no real claim to notability. Searches turned up nothing and it does not seem he is a regular or well known presenter. Jbh ^Talk 14:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real indication of notability and lacks the significant independent coverage needed to meet GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:58, 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, also per author request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cocoa Locale[edit]

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

I've always felt bad about this article I created about a small Montreal cake and cupcake bakery: I've nominated it for deletion once before, and it was kept as no-consensus. I created in back in 2009, when I was still a relative newbie, and before we had WP:AUD (as far as I know) as a barometer of greater-than-local coverage. Anyway, it is on that basis -- failing WP:AUD -- that I renominate this. Other editors have worked on it, so I can't speedy it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails notability. A local cafe with no notable distinction; one of many thousands of such businesses. MB 13:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. for (;;) (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable local business. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 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. Per the overall consensus and the analysis of the sources provided and refutation of the policies cited in the argument to keep by multiple users. KaisaL (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Brown (radio personality)[edit]

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

A very ordinary DJ with a 30 year career at a NYC station. Fails WP:BASIC; WP:ENTERTAINER; and WP:ANYBIO Steve Quinn (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:BASIC and WP:ENTERTAINER. See Longtime WCBS-FM Midday Jock, ‘Consummate Pro’ Bill Brown Dies at 69 or numerous issues of Billboard. Andrew D. (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't pass WP:BASIC "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". There is no substantial coverage in multiple independent sources. Also, I am not seeing other coverage in multiple independent sources - I see one article in a source that I question as being reliable - the one linked to above. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also Doesn't pass WP:ENTERTAINER, in order to so this person should: (1) have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions , which he hasn't; (2) A large fan base or a significant "cult" following -- which has not been shown to be true by any coverage in reliable sources; (3) he has NOT made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment -- or else this would be significantly covered in reliable sources. He stayed at one radio station for over 30 years - that is all that happened.

The only bio produced shows nothing remarkable about this person, all it shows is he had a long career - it verifies he existed. Additionally, it is a local publication. Also, those sources from Billboard magazine need to be produced - I don't see anything such thing during Google searches or Google News or Newspaper searches. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:24, 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 10:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The source provided by Andrew D above links to a localized publication called FishbowlNY — and the article itself cites just two sources of which one is another article in a local newspaper, and the other is his death notice on the web page of the funeral home that held his death services (i.e. a primary source, and a routine one at that since every single person who dies will always have one of those regardless of their encyclopedic notability or lack thereof.) So the evidence does not support that he's the subject of enough substantive coverage to satisfy WP:GNG — the only reliable sources that have been shown here at all are purely local coverage of him in a local context. A local radio personality does not get over WP:CREATIVE just because a couple of pieces of local coverage exist, because local coverage of local radio personalities always exists and we would thus have to keep an article about every single person who ever worked for any radio station at all. For anything short of national network prominence a radio personality must be extralocally sourceable as more notable than the thousands upon thousands of other people in the world who have been longtime local radio personalities in local media markets. But nothing here demonstrates or sources that he's more notable than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he was apparently only from 2 local stations, nothing establishing independence. SwisterTwister talk 19:34, 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. Hut 8.5 21:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gujarati News Service[edit]

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

Non-notable. I can't find secondary sources in either English or Hindi(?). Adam9007 (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this is a Gujarati institution, should not searches be done in that language before assuming there are no secondary sources?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a reliable source, but in this answer on Quora an Indian journalism student considers the GNS a major, reliable news agency. Based on their about us page they would be notable if it could be verified from an independent source. Given this, I'll agree with John Pack Lambert that without someone familiar with Gujarati doing a WP:BEFORE sweep, it would be premature to delete. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Coderzombie, Nizil Shah, Jethwarp, Rsrikanth05, and Yash!: You are all active, experienced editors who have the native Gujarati speaker infobox on your userpages. Could any of you please provide some guidance on whether this article should be kept or not? Thanks, ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a news agency providing news to small and medium sized newspapers published in Gujarati language. But it is less likely to be mentioned in secondary sources. Searches in Gujarati do not give references which can be used in article. Its claims like "largest" can not be independently verified and less likely to be. It is a news agency so not sure about if it can be considered notable or not.--Nizil (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Gujarat News Service or Gujarat News Agency - there are no independent or third party sources available in Gujarati language search also. I think it is too early for article to be created in lack of secondary and third party sources for Wiki page to be created or kept. Jethwarp (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, given the above comments by Nizil Shah and Jethwarp. Without any information to the contrary and two Gujarati speakers believing that there are no Gujarati sources that would demonstrate notability, there's no other way to !vote here. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the native speakers confirm that there's no notability in the related language. Even less notable for En wiki. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and thus should have frankly been speedied as A7. SwisterTwister talk 02:39, 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. Hut 8.5 21:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prerna Panwar[edit]

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

Delete or Redirect to Kuch Rang Pyar Ke Aise Bhi: It's WP:TOOSOON for individual article. Found nothing to support WP:NACTOR. Thank You – GSS (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator WP:TOOSOON. Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR ,is upcoming maybe notable in the future.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR and person not-notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:48, 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. There is some dispute here as to whether the title is a suitable redirect, so I'm not going to close this as Redirect, but this discussion does not prevent anyone from creating a redirect or discussing the redirection elsewhere. Hut 8.5 21:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Residents' Committee[edit]

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

Unreferenced and devoid of meaningful content. Only link is dead. Rathfelder (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to People's Association (Singapore)#Residents' Committees. The target article People's Association (Singapore) actually has more content about RCs than the one line article. A redirect is appropriate here. That said, there are references for "Residents' Committee" (see [7],[8],[9]) and I will insert them in the target article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy with this course of action.Rathfelder (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. I don't support a Redirect as the article title itself is without context/precision and does not relate to Singapore. A search within WP of the term finds many "residents committees" worldwide. The term could be a DAB, these committees were notable and had articles but none of them are, so not even a DAB is warranted. MB 14:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - somebody might be looking for the concept, and find this. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GetWellNetwork[edit]

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

Most sources are 404s, Ghits shows facebook, twitter and the like. Doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP at this point. Farmer Brown (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources that still exist are semi-local, and they sound split between paid PR and organic human interest news. Not sure how that stacks up, notability wise. The article itself reads like a bad infomercial once you reach the "Products" section, and the refs about it make the system sound laughably ill-conceived (GetWell systems come with a built-in AOL homepage!). Main editor "TCook" was originally named "GetWellNetwork". Probably deserves a COI smackdown. Jergling (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. promotional article with no real evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means and I comment because I speedied as G11. SwisterTwister talk 23:30, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

T.J. Humphreys[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. There is nothing in-depth that I can find to establish notability. The references mainly talk about the company and everything else (including the link to a magazine cover in eBay) is not reliable. CNMall41 (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:56, 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. However as participation in the discussion is limited the barrier to allowing any recreations to stand is low, and I will be happy to restore it if any serious objection to the deletion is made. (Contrary to what is said below articles can be recreated after A7 deletions, as long as the recreation does not meet A7.) Hut 8.5 21:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nemessis[edit]

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

Proposing deletion as the band does not seem to meet the notability guidelines in WP:NMUSIC. Additionally, CSD:A7 was previously used to delete this exact same page which was recreated several hours after deletion with no significant changes. Dane2007 (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable band, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. The only reliable reference is the Shock one (Shock is Colombia's leading alternative music magazine) – Unradio is a university college radio station, and most of the other references are from blogs. Iridescent deleted the article originally, and presumably an article should not be recreated after an A7 deletion – does this article need salting if a second deletion takes place? Richard3120 (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:56, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

H. Rajesh Prasad[edit]

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

Officer is just mid level management. Delete. Being the administrator of a Union Territory does not make someone notable by just holding the post. For non Indian editors there is a difference between Administrator and Lt Governor &Governor. The former being a bureaucratic post appointed by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the latter being a political post appointed by the President on advice by the Prime Minister and his cabinet. Uncletomwood (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep heads of the union territories of India are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify as to how? Under what parameter? In the same way then, a District Collector, Superintendent of Police and a Commissioner of Income Tax of a district should also be notable. Uncletomwood (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the reasons of the nomination. Engleham (talk) 19:34, 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 15:55, 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 merge to Villains in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers#Rito Revolto. MBisanz ^talk 13:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rito Revolto[edit]

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

This character article lacks sources to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Villains in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers#Rito Revolto if independent notability cannot be established. Has this already been tried and I missed it? Jclemens (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge probably appropriate, though I do note that it's completely unsourced. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the Google News link above shows some mentions, certainly enough for V, hence being appropriate for inclusion in a characters list for a notable fictional franchise. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, I'm just noting that we might want to challenge the value of merging unreferenced content. It's one thing to say that content about the character belongs in a particular list, but it's another thing to say that this content belongs in a particular list. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you challenging the content outright? It's certainly a fallacy that every last scrap of info on Wikipedia has to be referenced. Is there some reason you feel this particular content is inaccurate? Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1) What I have said is perfectly clear. 2) That's not what fallacy means. 3) The burden of proof lies with those defending inclusion to provide references. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Character in a major artistic franchise Brainplanner (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is 12 years old. I don't like saying "other stuff exists" in these discussions, but there is Template:Power Rangers characters that should be used as a guideline to make this sourceable. All it takes is episode sources to satisfy that. — Wylie pedia 04:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as suggested above. From looking at the Google News hits I think it is possible to write a sentence or two about the subject sourced to reliable sources, but the subject doesn't seem to have much more independent notability than that. Minor characters in significant franchises are often dealt with in character lists. The Keep arguments above aren't based on our policies and guidelines: the fact that the subject is a character in a major franchise does not make them notable, and while the article could be entirely sourced to episodes that would basically turn it into a plot summary, and the age of the article is irrelevant. Hut 8.5 22:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect entirely as it's only a character clearly best known from the series. SwisterTwister talk 19:34, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don Shipley (stage director)[edit]

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

Notability not asserted, lacks significant coverage per WP:GNG. Several of the refs are dead, the first two Canada Theatre refs are namedrops only in the context of the history of the theatre, and I can't seem to get a reliable hit on any of the awards he has won except for this article. WP:NOTINHERITED as far as directing at a notable theatre is concerned, as the articles on them are place-oriented. The linked bio at Stratford is also dead. MSJapan (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:GNG met by [10] and [11]. Looks like some of the dead links have been fixed by Sillyrabbit12. Notability is not temporary so dead links are not necessarily a problem and a thorough WP:BEFORE should include a look for archived versions of cited sources. ~Kvng (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:53, 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. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarks UK[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage about in independent reliable sources. Dead press releases and PR for their package designers are not good enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not the notable footwear chain. Minor import company with limited coverage is not notable even if the maple syrup market is growing. MLA (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets notability guideline, more sources exist (Telegraph,Wales Online). Peter James (talk) 21:09, 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 01:35, 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 15:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Telegraph
Media Wales
Media Wales
Daily Mail
Swindon Advertiser
Wales Business Insider
Media Wales

Delete instead as I examined the listed sources including above and they are either simply interviews, trivial coverage or anything similar to this that is not equalizing to actual substance. There's simply not enough to suggest a both non-advertorial and then factual article. SwisterTwister talk 19:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The firm may possibly be notable, but the article is an advertisement. As for quality of the references, there is a remarkable similarity in the text between this article and most of the,showing their nature as press releases . DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 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. Sandstein 17:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DWHL[edit]

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

The article is about a non-notable radio station and has no references since it was created. I have PRODed it but that PROD was contested for no reason. Sixth o f March 07:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:36, 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 05:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, the two notability criteria that a radio station has to meet to be eligible for a Wikipedia article are that (a) it is duly licensed by the appropriate regulatory authority, and (b) it originates at least a portion of its own programming schedule in its own studios rather than operating purely as a repeater of another station. But those details have to be reliably sourced — we have seen hoax articles created about radio stations that don't actually exist at all, so it is not enough to just claim that a radio station exists. But this is entirely unsourced, and that means it has to be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable radio station and lacks reliable third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:21, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Špiro Kulišić[edit]

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

Kulišić was a head of the Belgrade Etnographic Museum. Wrote much but all his works were un-academic with false citations, forgeries, and fabrications. It cannot be said that he was a notable author in a positive way. The article, as written, is without valid sources, based only on a single reference which does not even mention Kulišić nor his work.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per lack of sources and not being notable. --Vujkovica brdo (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Vujkovica brdo (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. Stroke above !vote, editor is nominator. –– Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new edit, and lack of any evidence of not being notable, and especially false accusations.--Crovata (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New edit is one-sided and includes just a small number (3) of references. It does not include numerous negative views about Kulisic's writing. Wikipedia demands proofs of notability not proofs of not being notable. Please, provide proofs of notability in a positive academic way and per Wikipedia rules and guidances.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The new article revision is positive, it is not one-sided, it has enough number of references which cover his biography and most important information, and there is hard to find the general criticism of his work. Previous revision had no reference for the accusations on "un-academic" work, by which the nominator "one-sided" premise is invalid. Also, those accusations were supported by the outdated political and cultural ideology of the time. Moreover, as can be seen there existed sources for the article improvement by which, under rule "C.", it was not a candidate for AfD. The proof for notability is provided, obviously the nominator is not familiar with WP:SCHOLAR, by which Š. Kulišić is notable under several conditions.--Crovata (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Crovata Did you read WP:SCHOLAR? Which of the nine criteria is applicable to poor Š. Kulišić? Please, substantiate and elaborate just one of the several claimed.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since a personal opinion of an author's work is not basis for the deletion of an biographic article. The article could use improvement, but the deletion proposal is evidently guided by a single user's personal opinion, which makes it unacceptable. Sideshow Bob 08:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.@Sideshow Bob No place for talking about my personal opinion here. See the article talk page. In addition, this man Š. Kulišić is not notable for not a single criterion of the WP:SCHOLAR is applicable to his work.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The talk page does not contain valid arguments for deletion, and by the way njegos.org is not a reliable source as it is a heavily biased Serb nationalist website. I am not familiar enough with this author's work to comment on its academic quality, but take notice that even complete lunatics such as the pseudo-historian Jovan I. Deretić have their articles here too. Hence, my suggestion is an improvement of the article from a neutral perspective, rather than its deletion. Cheers. Sideshow Bob 09:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sideshow Bob Nonsensic reply. The talk page nowhere addressed Jovan I. Deretić - rather
  Ethnogenesis and Socialist Nation: Polemics on O etnogenezi Crnogoraca in 1980s Yugoslavia by Takuya Nakazawa Paper presented at ICCEES IX World Congress 7th August 2015, Makuhari, Japan
  Dordje Vid Tomasevic Retired professor of Anthropology at the Buffalo University in New York and member of Crown Council Montenegrins and other Serbs
  
  " I am not familiar enough with this author's work to comment on its academic quality" very good! Then what makes you to request keeping this article if you are not able to elaborate and substantiate WP:SCHOLAR criteria of notability?--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Vujkovica brdo due you understand that the article is invalid candidate for Afd if you're listing (are those reliable?) sources by which the article could be improved? If a scholar is notable for any one of the conditions, and can be substantiated through reliable sources, is notable. He is especially notable by condition 1 (his work made a significant impact in the disciplines), 4 (significant impact on the ethnography and museology institutions), 5 or 6 (he was official in charge of the scientific institutions and associations like National Museum in Bosnia and Herzegovina). Personal editor opinion is invalid criteria for deletion.--Crovata (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Crovata This user associated his or her empty statements to the WP:SCHOLAR criteria. "his work made a significant impact in the disciplines"? Does this user know English good enough to lead a serious discussion? "he was official in charge of the scientific institutions and associations"!! - really laughable. Personal opinions, incomplete and wrong understanding of the WP:SCHOLAR.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no lack of sources, Kulisic is often quoted in the past 60+ years, and I have added some citations to verify this as a fact. To freely quote two of them, he is well-known and influential. Subject meets WP:NACADEMICS. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:21, 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. czar 02:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fin (disbanded)[edit]

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

Not sure this band meets WP:NMUSIC. Even the article appears to be candid about their notability: "Achieved mild success on the independent circuit in the UK" and "Their debut album sold poorly". As they were around in the early 1990s, it's very tough sometimes, because they could have had wide coverage in the music magazines of the time, meaning an equivalent band in 2016 would easily qualify for inclusion. However, without this sort of evidence, it's unclear whether they justify an article. It may require research and input would be welcome. KaisaL (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: really going to struggle to find sources to keep this, I think. They certainly never had any chart success, and never made much impact even within the British indie scene: I don't recall their songs ever being played on BBC Radio 1's The Evening Session (the most likely radio outlet for their music in the early '90s), and if there is any mention of them in NME or Melody Maker I think it will likely be as passing mentions in the "introducing new bands" section of the magazines (I think in NME this was called On at the time), or as the support band in a gig review. Richard3120 (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really informative contribution, thanks. It reaffirms my thoughts that they don't really justify an article as a minor band that never achieved success in their time. KaisaL (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:52, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hummer (band)[edit]

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

Full disclosure: I'm the original creator here, a decade ago when our sourcing and notability standards were very different than they are now -- and they were a minor enough band that I had since entirely forgotten that they and this even existed. Under contemporary standards, however, nothing here passes WP:NMUSIC at all and they can't be reliably sourced over WP:GNG. This was prodded the other day, which I agreed with, but was then deprodded by another editor with the rationale that merging it was preferable to deleting it -- but the problem is that this was a transitional one-off project that sits at the nexus of five different acts with greater notability than this one had, making it impossible to determine where a redirect should point. The involved articles can all just link directly to each other, without needing this to stand alone as a separate article if "crosslinking other notable acts" is really the only notability claim that can be made. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The Allmusic bio is sufficient for sourcing basic facts about the band, and it was significant enough to be covered somewhere in articles about McKinnon and Poirier's bands. Dig Circus or FemBots are probably the best merge targets, but the whole set of related articles could really do with looking at to see which can be sourced properly and which should be merged elsewhere. --Michig (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already merged Dig Circus into FemBots, because they had no real notability or sourceability in their own right for anything much stronger than having members who went on to greater notability with another band later on (FemBots need referencing improvement too, but their notability and sourceability are stronger than DC's or Hummer's, and the article just needs to be updated to bring it back into line with Wikipedia's contemporary standards.) What I don't see is how FemBots could possibly take precedence over Ron Hawkins as a redirect target for this. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? FemBots included the band's vocalist and guitarist, according to Allmusic. --Michig (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the vocalist and guitarist trump the most independently notable and (semi-)famous member? Even under the horribly loose NMUSIC standards of the mid-naughties, Hawkins was the main reason this band was ever actually a valid article topic (as he's the only one of the three who actually has his own independent notability, separately from any of his bands, as a valid topic for a standalone BLP.) And the fact that there are two different, otherwise unrelated article topics with competing claims of precedence for the purposes of a redirect is exactly the problem here. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:26, 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 05:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:52, 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 05:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Preparis Inc[edit]

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

Promotional page for non-notable company. Aksnahar (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Page was created without {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. One of a series of malformed nominations by an account with few edits. Fixed now--I offer no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 17:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:21, 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 05:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotion for company lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non notable company. The references are only press releases and the like about its financing. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What does Preparis Inc do? I'm serious. "Provides business continuity and cybersecurity software" to a bunch of other companies? "Cybersecurity," okay, but "business continuity"? Like if there's a tornado that destroys the client's server hardware, or a flash flood? Without third-party coverage of the importance and notability of this company's products, these are nothing but despicable self-aggrandizing buzzwords. Wikipedians hitting the "random article" button ought never end up on a page for an entity whose actual business activities remain a mystery even after closely reading the article. What does this company do? Don't tell me I'm too stupid; I can read Bose–Einstein condensate and get the gist of it. This is unimportant jargon on top of unimportant jargon and Wikipedia has better things to do. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hootan Ahmadi[edit]

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

Promotional page created to promote a non notable bio. Aksnahar (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Page was created without {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. One of a series of malformed nominations by an account with few edits. Fixed now--I offer no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 17:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor businessman who comes no where near notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The Evening Standard profile from 2013 [12] appears to be significant coverage in a reasonably reliable source, but the other sources either don't appear reliable or the coverage is not significant, so the subject probably just fails WP:BASIC. Qwfp (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage I am seeing is very sparse (except for the one source linked above). There are quite a few trivial mentions, but overall it fails GNG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Tracy Awards[edit]

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

Article is on the verge of being promotional. It contains nothing but a list of bare links, of which this is the only one to a reliable source, a short article on the Wall Street Journal blog from 2009. There seems to be nothing more recent, indicating that this turned out not to be so notable after all. I can find nothing more that's relevant or reliable. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly part of a little walled garden with Crowell Advertising, also nominated. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Inside joke of a self congratulatory oorder seeking external lifeBrainplanner (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely advertorial, nothing actually minimally convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:32, 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. I'm afraid I have go give more weight to arguments based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines than editors' individual opinions about notability. Hut 8.5 21:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dinemore[edit]

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

Unable to identify any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources; given the tiny number of locations, this is not surprising. —swpb^T 12:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not noteworthy for a stand alone article, more of a local promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm still not finding anything actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 18:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for a business that was the first and is currently the largest Sri Lankan-based fast food franchise, it is a shame that it is so difficult to find reliable independent secondary sources. I believe that the business is notable however accept that there is a lack of significant coverage of the business. Dan arndt (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Dan arndt: Without significant coverage in RS, we cannot keep the page. It's that simple. Your "belief" in notability carries zero weight. —swpb^T 13:29, 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 Merge as a week has suggested nothing else, the history is in the logs so anyone can access them for a merge (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 19:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Writers in Oxford[edit]

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

Google finds no independent sources with substantial coverage (i.e., not passing mentions while covering another subject) of an organization named "writers in oxford". Apparently the Oxford Times regularly covers them, going by the footnotes, but otherwise they reference only one Amazon book page with a passing mention and one event listing on a local, affiliated website. Hence, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Largoplazo (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Largoplazo. Thanks for reviewing my article. (I hope I'm using this talk page correctly. I'm not used to it, so apologies if I'm doing it wrong.) I wonder if it's possible to look again at my article? The Oxford Literary Festival is a totally separate organisation of some repute - sponsored by the Financial Times - and reference number one shows WiO giving a talk at this year's event: http://oxfordliteraryfestival.org/literature-events/2016/april-06/writers-in-oxford . You're right that a lot of the references are passing mentions, but I included those only as ways of demonstrating that specific people were members, rather than as proof the organisation exists. Reference number two seems more than a passing mention, as the title says that it's about the 20th birthday of the group - http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/10059312.Happy_Birthday_to_writers__group_and_bookshop/ - and the article mentions that members include Philip Pullman, who is notable in his own right. Before starting the article, I checked for similar ones to see what I needed to do and came up with Norwich Writers' Circle and Hastings Writers' Group, for example, which seem to have less in the way of external sources. Is it possible to look at this again please, or do you have any suggestions for anything else I can do? I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so would appreciate any advice you can give. Thanks! Tessthepuppy (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC) @Largoplazo:[reply]

Hi again. I've inserted a couple of links from the Society of Authors website, explaining what WiO is and mentioning a joint event between the two organisations. The Society of Authors has its own Wikipedia article, so hopefully this helps? Is there anything more I can do? Thanks for your assistance. @Largoplazo: Tessthepuppy (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If kept I wonder if it shouldn't be moved to Writers in Oxford (organisation), so as to make it clear that this is not some sort of Oxford subset of List of English writers? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Shawn. That sounds like a good idea. Tessthepuppy (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Society of Authors. I wish it were otherwise, but I just can't find anything to show that this organization is ultimately notable per Wikipedia's guidelines, which can be pretty difficult to accomplish even for extremely mainstream organizations. The organization has ties to notable people, but that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. It's a shame that mainstream culture doesn't pay more attentions to organizations like this, but there's not much that we can do on Wikipedia about that. Now a viable alternative is to include this in the article for Society of Authors as a subsection. The two organizations are separate, however there are enough ties here to where merging some of the data into a subsection isn't impossible, as it was started by members of SoA and they do some activities with them. I think that as long as the section emphasizes that it's an affiliated, separate group and not a branch of the organization itself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Society of Authors, which presently has no mention of this organization. This will serve to improve the merge target article and make it more comprehensive. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 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 merge to July 2016 Kabul bombing. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the July 2016 Kabul bombing[edit]

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

This article is way too sparse to warrant its own page. After all, this wasn't a Western target, so who really cares?! 27.99.78.174 (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC) Completing AfD listing for IP - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to July 2016 Kabul bombing. Indeed, the page in question is far too short to justify a spin-off, and the content would be better off in the main article - which is short enough as is. There are only six reactions on the page, one of which (Taliban denial) is already in the main article. GAB^gab 14:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I am appalled by the reasons given for deletion. First of all, sparseness is not an issue so long as it is properly sourced, and as this makes the rounds more governments will naturally comment. Give it time — it is a recent event after all, and the event in and of itself is notable.
But what really grates my ears is how you seem to imply that just because this isn't a "Western target", no one cares and it should be deleted. Seriously?! Wikipedia as it is suffers from systemic bias and you want to exacerbate it by implying that only Western events and things that apparently only impact the West deserve coverage on Wikipedia? The world is more than just the West. Wikipedia is more than just the West. For these reasons (and more!), I say keep for now, and consider merging if there really is no information. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, I suspect the IP may have been sarcastic there. GAB^gab 15:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Laugh Out Loud (even though this is a serious topic, dead serious) User:GeneralizationsAreBad, if we had an Understatement of the Year barnstar, I would award it to you. That IP nailed this. The under-recording of acts of terrorism, and the tendency to delete articles about terrorism in the Muslim World and in countries with large Muslim populations (Nigeria, Israel, Uganda) is disgraceful. Although, to be fair, part of the reason is that this is the English Wikipedia, so we do have better articles for the Anglosphere.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge (effectively the same thing). (1) At time of writing, this page and the main article are very short and splitting off is definitely not justified. See WP:SPLIT. (2) This is clearly just the latest in a long line of attempts by list-junkies to exhaustively document all the standard predictable condemnations/commiserations, "in case they might be useful in the future", which is not what WP is for. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The significant statements should be merged back into the main article, the rest deleted. I'm happy to note that an intelligent precedent has recently been set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack. (3) The last bit of the nomination rationale is clearly facetious and tasteless and should be ignored, or preferably fixed up by the nominator. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to July 2016 Kabul bombing. Apart from listing the usual "Omg, we feel so sorry for you" reactions, the handful of reactions does indeed not justify a split from the main article. By the way, one word for them reaction repository-junkies: WikiQuote. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to July 2016 Kabul bombing. With real empathy for Nom's point. I presume that this is WP:POINTY, a nomination intended to bring up our failure to adequately cover Islamist attacks on Muslim targets. But the taraget article is not overlarge. Until/unless that article become excessively long, there is no justificaiton for a separate article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to July 2016 Kabul bombing. Insufficient combined content to warrant two articles. By the way, the number of fatalities in itself does not directly relate to the amount of interest an event receives in the media or on Wikipedia. 150,000 people died yesterday but media do not report it. Gap9551 (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to July 2016 Kabul bombing. This never should have been a separate entry. Bangabandhu (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noteworthy responses to a major event. A universal consensus is being observed for condemnation of terrorism. One may see the censure made by countries and total number of countries of this globe, so the voice of different countries to a platform by their reaction must be catered for. Reactions to a terrorist attack that has reached international attention literally worldwide is notable. ZN3ukct (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral WP:GNG says: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. WP:NTEMP also prescribes that "notability not temporary". Per First (perhaps the only) keep vote the page should be dealt with WP:DUE. I think this is rule position, but I have seen the fate of page Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack + (1); more importantly the page view statistics and international reactions with huge difference itself speak for humanitarianism and dual standard for terrorism. So with this academic background I stand neutral at this PROD. Nannadeem (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article about the issue, because similar terrorist attacks have a section on reactions. Examples include June 2016 Tel Aviv shooting and 2016 Atatürk Airport attack. Mooseandbruce1 (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Articles aren't big enough to warrant a split. ansh 666 20:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per reasons stated by others. Article is too small to be on its own. Should be simply merged on the attack article itself. --Hyperwq+639 (talk) 14:16, 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. Hut 8.5 21:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Gupta (businessman)[edit]

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

Non Notable businessman Uncletomwood (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman. We seem to get way too many articles on such people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per comment above. Wikipedia is not Linkedin. Engleham (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another promotional article which fails GNG miserably. Only claim to fame, he is the "Chairman cum Managing director" ;). Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:55, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Vasudev[edit]

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

Non Notable Indian Executive Uncletomwood (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very notable Indian Executive. Stefanomione (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete company vice presidents are almost never notable for being such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable under any Wikipedia policy. Engleham (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. I am not even sure what exactly is the claim to notability; an interview or being a VP? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:56, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Panchal[edit]

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

Non Notable businessman. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Did not win any award but was only a semifinalist. Fails WP:ANYBIO Uncletomwood (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads like a resume.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't Linkedin. CV of a non-notable individual. Engleham (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good photo, good CV, bad notability. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:58, 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 21:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riaz K Ahmed (PRO)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, just a man with a job The Banner talk 11:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - a case of self promotion Gbawden (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG ,self promotion.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promo content on a non-notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone actually thought that being a PRO (public relations officer) is a claim to notability? Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:59, 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 . Materialscientist (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pirgacha Govt. Primary School[edit]

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

Non-notable village primary school, its own facebook page is blank. As a school it cannot be speedied A7, but being a primary school is not “protected” by WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Arjayay (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just not noteworthy for a stand alone article; maybe a local interest to a degree but just not seeing how it is notable for an article herein. Kierzek (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable primary school. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NetHope[edit]

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

This seems like a worthwhile organization and I'm sorry to have to AfD it, however, after removing a raft of uncited claims from the article I realized all that was left was essentially references to the organization's website itself. A thorough search of Google News finds a smattering of RS references, but all in passing and non-substantive (e.g. "Microsoft Philanthropies has partnered with more than a dozen nonprofits to deliver support to refugees around the world. Grants to NetHope, Mercy Corps, and the International Rescue Committee have helped those organizations offer food, water, housing, ..." [13] I also checked JSTOR and it is unmentioned in any peer-reviewed journal and the group returns no results in a search of Google Books. BlueSalix (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I really hate the scenarios in which there are 20 deletions painstakingly made before an article is hauled to AfD, which is the case here. Either it is notable or not, why gut and gut and gut and gut — and THEN ask for deletion? It makes no sense. THIS is what the article looked like before nominator peeled nearly 10K of content away... Carrite (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Addendum: Slight hyperbole here, I count 12 separate edits deleting material prior to nomination in this specific case. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am working from the premise that a consortium of NGOs that has been in existence since 2001 is probably notable. So let's start looking. Here is one item dealing substantially with the topic: Gisli Olafsson, "Why We Should Turn To Technology When Disaster Strikes," albeit by a NetHope employee and thus not fulfilling the independent status we need for publications to count towards GNG at AfD. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the deleted footnotes, Nancy Gohring, "NGO Networks in Haiti Cause Problems for Local ISPs," PCWorld, Feb. 22, 2010, deals substantially enough with the consortium to count towards GNG, in my view. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the deleted footnotes: "IT Lends a Helping Hand: An Interview with NetHope's Edward Granger-Happ," CIO-Insight, Jan. 28, 2005. You will need to click the PRINT button to see the very long, presumably reliable, independently-published interview. Blocked by a NOROBOTS script from Archive.org, unfortunately. 'CIO-Insight is part of Ziff-Davis and this absolutely counts towards GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the footnotes showing: Todd Cohen, "Waves of Cash," Non-Profit Times, March 1, 2005. Includes three short paragraphs on NetHope, calling them "an alliance of 15 of the world’s largest relief organizations that serves as their international telecom department" — which not only goes towards GNG but demonstrates encyclopedic significance. There's probably more out there, but I have seen enough. Carrite (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fulfills GNG based upon the above sources listed. Carrite (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Fundamentals of Information Systems
Information and Communication Technology for Peace
The Retirement Activities Guide
Principles of Information Systems
Nonprofit Guide to Going Green
PC World
The Irish Times (subscription required)
The Irish Times (subscription required)
Stanford Social Innovation Review (subscription required)

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. All secondary schools/unis/colleges are kept per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New English School (Kuwait)[edit]

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

No reliable sources cover this topic. Fails GNG and ORG Steve Quinn (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The school exists, it's a high school, and it meets the notabilty agreed by long standing community practice as documented at OUTCOMES and evidenced by thousands of AfD closures. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long standing consensus on secondary schools. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can be sourced (a couple of {{cite book}}s have been added), and thus should be kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GGZ[edit]

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

A disambig which only consists of two redlinks. There is no speedy criterion as far as I know, therefore I nominate it here. Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: legitimate dab page disambiguating two entities which are mentioned in blue-linked articles. PamD 11:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC) See below[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, the first redlink is orphaned except for this disambiguation page and therefore violates MOS:DABRL, but that's a minor issue.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see now that it was deleted at AfD this morning. I think I feel the urge to create an article for the Dutch health organisation ... PamD 17:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to (new article) Dutch Association of Mental Health and Addiction Care, native name GGZ Nederland. Gaming Zone entry not a legitimate dab page entry as does not appear to be mentioned in either of its blue links. PamD 17:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There were entries meeting MOS:DABRL, on the page and ready to be added. Now has two blue links plus valid see also. First entry should be deleted as doesn't meet MOS:DABRL and isn't mentioned on linked articles. Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Should have found the airline. Not sure about the ptm hospital or the call sign, and agree that the gaming zone needs to go. But healthcare + airline = valid dab. PamD 07:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ymblanter, would you please look the page over as it is now and consider withdrawing the nomination? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It is only here for four days, may be someone else could find more articles. The nomination itself was fully legitimate.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason I suggested looking at it again is because I don't think it meets deletion criteria. Keeping an AfD open when it's got to the point where improvements show it doesn't meet criteria isn't helpful, it wastes people's time looking it over and commenting. You may feel the nomination was fully legitimate (I would disagree, as a bit of WP:BEFORE research would have shown how the page could be improved without deletion) but I think it's clear that now it is not legitimate. We don't keep things at AfD to see if legitimate pages can be further improved - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Boleyn (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  I prefer another user to close this nomination.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Goswami (VG)[edit]

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

Vishal Goswmai is not the same person mentioned in this article. Vishal Goswami-the speaker and writer is not notable. The edit summaries shows conflict of interest from the page creator. Rainbow Archer (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article appears to be heavily promotional and doesn't credibly indicate its importance or significance at all. Heat Is Cool 16:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per WP:A7 and WP:G11. Two of the three listed sources don't even mention him, and the remaining one is his own website. Unambiguous autobiography and promotional intent. --Drm310 (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Author blanked the page after I nom'd it for speedy. --Drm310 (talk) 13:03, 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. Sandstein 17:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International scientific-practical journal «Commodities and Markets»[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator without reason given. Journal only indexed in trivial or suspect indexing services (such as Index Copernicus). PROD reason therefore still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Journal present in Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=TXm7F6kAAAAJ&hl=uk Tunyk (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, it is. GScholar strives to include every journal ever published, so it is not a selective database in the sense of WP:NJournals, so this fails criterion 1. In addition, the link you provide shows that articles from this journal are rarely cited (418 total, h-index of 7). This number of citations would be insufficient to make a single researcher notable, let alone a whole journal, so this fails criterion 2. Finally, there are no sources indicating that the journal has a significant history (the low citation counts already point to that), so this also fails criterion 3. --Randykitty (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The journal is popular in Ukraine, unfortunately, Ukrainian scientists only recently started using Google Scholar, and the majority of citations is solely in paper form (in Ukraine few books that are publicly available online, and academics mass not place their articles in such services as Academia. edu or ResearchGate) so these figures due to consider it. However, as I said journal is the official international board and filed an application for inclusion in Scopus and Web of Science. Tunyk (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Index Copernicus in Ukraine is considered one of the most authoritative databases. To Journal it was it must meet several criteria. Tunyk (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are selective databases, so they don't contribute to notability. For a journal to meet criterion 3, you'd need thousands of citations and several articles with 100 or more citations. the information in Index Copernicus is contributed by the publishers of the journals themselves and it contains many predatory journals. It's "ICV" score is calculated in a weird manner and is basically meaningless. Most high-profile journals are not in IC and being listed in it is more of a negative than a positive, I fear. --Randykitty (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, and Randykitty explains well why it fails our more detailed criteria for journals. In other words, it is a tiny journal nobody cares about except few people who run it. Not encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of selective indexing or other aspects of notability covered by WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Randykitty pretty much hit the nail on the head. I'm not seeing evidence of being listed in selective indexes as opposed to basically a wiki that would indicate the journal is reputable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:30, 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 Delete. Hut 8.5 21:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ranil Mallawarachchi[edit]

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

The article was previously deleted via PROD on 10 June 2016 by Iridescent. It has since been recreated by the original editor with no changes. The subject fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG - the sole reliance is that he is the son of Milton Mallawarachchi (WP:NOTINHERITED). References are either WP:PRIMARY or mentions in passing. Dan arndt (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of article is important and can be further improved DilJco (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DilJco if he was notable then you need to provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Sources such as Ranil Mallawarachchi's personal website and YouTube are not acceptable as evidence of notability. Dan arndt (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because personal websites plus YouTube are included together with sources independent of the subject, it is unfair to delete such famous and important subject. DilJco (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other sources that you've provided are merely mentions of the subject in passing. I suggest that you check WP:NMUSIC and provide evidence that the subject meets those criteria. Dan arndt (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As stated, no improvements were made to this article since it's original deletion. It does not meet the guidelines for inclusion on wikipedia. Dane2007 (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO as a singer. LibStar (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where are the albums? On what chart? Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:03, 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. Disregarding non policy-based arguments, consensus is to delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Nataf[edit]

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

This person does not seem to be notable but I could see the potential debate. Therefore, I am nominating to AfD and I will abstain from voting. Dane2007 (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nataf is a fairly widely published writer, as well as a rabbi and educator. Of the three references, the first is a list of articles he has written for Haaretz, while the other two are articles he has written. None of those are independent, and therefore do not establish notability. I made a good faith Google search and found other articles by him, and passing mentions of him. But I was not able to find any significant coverage of him as a person in independent reliable sources. I will gladly change my recommendation from delete to keep if acceptable sources come to light. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources all valid. Owaavaax (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - sources indicate notability beyond reasonable doubt. --Creektiming (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Please be aware, Owaavaax, Creektiming and Anthony K Manning, that notability requires significant coverage in independent sources. Which sources do you see that are independent? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources are fine, pleae stop harassing editors who disagree with your views. Creektiming (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: both Owaavaax and Creektiming have just been blocked , for team-tag harassment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN - Does not make the criteria for authors and teachers. every lecturer and author does not get a wiki page. Minor publications on the Bible along with promotional articles and promotional excerpts from the books is not notability. There is no significant outside coverage of him or citation of him. He does not seem to have any major notability in his employment history or any award. --Jayrav (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability requirements are ‘worthy of notice or note – that is, remarkable or significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.’ Anyone who fails to appreciate that Nataf satisfies these criteria is simply unaware of his contribution - in print, on line, and in person. Nataf is a rare and noted voice in contemporary Orthodox Bible scholarship. Few others have the academic breadth and intellectual depth to engage meaningfully with classic Biblical Criticism and the modern Literary and Historical Schools of Bible Study. Nataf is without question ‘remarkable, significant, interesting, and unusual’ in his fieldAnthony K Manning (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Anthony K Manning (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rabbi Nataf is a well-respected speaker and author, and his books have been well received. I only found out about him through those books. His series on the Bible received an approbation by Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein - one of the most influential Modern Orthodox leaders of the last 30 years. Elialt1 (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC) moved from talk page by Meters [reply]

— Note to closing admin: Elialt1 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Reply Biographies of a person require references to significant coverage of the person in independent, reliable sources, Elialt1. Please add such references to the article if you want it to be kept. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the sources that are currently in the article cannot be considered independent of the subject. Opinion pieces he's written, mentions of books he's written, mentions of him in listings of lecturers, etc are not sufficient to show notability, and I have not been able to find adequate sources myself. I'd be happy to reconsider if better sources are provided. Meters (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see any notability from the sources in the article or a search for others. The fact that he has written for a number of newspapers and given lectures aren't, in and of themselves, indications of notability. Ravendrop 02:06, 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. Consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Róbert Pukalovič (ice hockey b. 1984)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: He played over 250 games in several European minor leagues, which would normally be a criterion #3 pass on NHOCKEY. Has a genuine check been made for sources in European papers? Ravenswing 23:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only leagues he has played in that count towards Criterion #3 are the Slovak Extraliga and the Mestis, in which he has played a total of 66 games and he has won no awards. He definitely fails NHOCKEY. Joeykai (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:58, 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 11:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't have to coverage for GNG or the accomplishments for NHOCKEY.Mdtemp (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Ravenswing. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 14:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete As joey points out he only played 66 games in leagues that meet Criteria #3. So he does fail NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As previously noted above, he does fail NHOCKEY and trying to find a reliable source about him is very difficult. Deadman137 (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as this consensus shows there's still not enough convincingly better to keep. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 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; unanimous consensus except for the various indicated sockpuppets.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Shabsy[edit]

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

subject has not been significantly discussed in independent sources to establish notability. It therefore fails WP:MUSICBIO —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject only mentioned in passing in RS. Meatsgains (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of the subject doesn't yield anything in terms of coverage. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article which does not meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO have being added.--Cynthiakruz (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC) — Cynthiakruz (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Coal Press Nation (talk • contribs). [reply]

Comment: I suspect sock puppetry from Cynthiakruz and Markzy90.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oluwa2Chainz (talk • contribs) 22:08, 16 July 2016

Comment: A suspect is a person who has multiple account to abuse the Wikipedia policy, i think am right, You can visit my userpage, i talk about myself and my userpage also show my picture of me to show that my account is owned by nobody accept me.--Markzy90 (talk) 06:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)— Markzy90 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Coal Press Nation (talk • contribs). [reply]

Delete Most references do not qualify as reliable sources others do not provide any in-depth coverage and are just mere mentions. I could not find the needed in-depth coverage from reliable sources to meet our general notability guidelines or any indications that it could meet WP:MUSICBIO. The argument to keep from Cynthiakruz is invalid according to WP:OTHERSTUFF.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The subject of the person has worked with the biggest TV Station in Nigeria which is Soundcity TV. He was also listed at Soundcity TV Wikipedia page and website. Subject of a person have a singles according to WP:MUSICBIO. Subject of a person have being published to different website according to WP:MUSICBIO. Subject of a person has won or has being nominated according to WP:MUSICBIO. Subject of a person have being listed on the Nigeria Entertainment Awards 2016. Subject of a person has worked with notable people such as Olamide, Kiss Daniel, Ice Prince .--Markzy90 (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)— Markzy90 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Coal Press Nation (talk • contribs). [reply]

@Markzy90: If the artist has a single or album that was on the national music chart, or if he has received a notable award please provide a reliable source to reference it. Wikipedia itself should not be used as a source. A simple mention in a Wikipedia article without a reliable source to verify the content does not contribute to establish notability and neither does the claim of having worked with notable people if it is not in the context of a notable band or group.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- @Crystallizedcarbon: I have stated more awards and references which he was nominated, According to WP:MUSICBIO.

8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. You can also check out the artist single on itunes DJ Shabsy on itunes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markzy90 (talk • contribs)

— Duplicate vote: Markzy90 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

— Markzy90 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Coal Press Nation (talk • contribs).

Keep:- This article is not lacking WP:MUSICBIO, article has now meet the criteria for WP:MUSICBIO.--Skito58 (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)— Skito58 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Coal Press Nation (talk • contribs). [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No non-trivial coverage from sources that clearly meet WP:RS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:55, 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 delete. czar 02:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Pante[edit]

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

Completely unsourced biography. No person of that name to be found on "Levi+Pante" Google Scholar or Google Books. The person that resembles his biography closest that I was able to find is one "Loeb Fernbach" who became rabbi in Heidingsfeld (Heifeld?) in 1783, but other than that the biographies are different. I suggest to delete this article for now. bender235 (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ Looks like a punny hoax to me Furius (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In light of Hasirpad's comment below, I withdraw my delete vote, since it was based on a false premise. Furius (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely hoax, no sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, (apologies if this person did exist, but couldn't resist ) were they related to Jeannie Strauss? Coolabahapple (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: definitely real (Hebrew sources are easily available in the various databases of rabbinical literature—search "לוי פנטא‎"), but unusually obscure for a rabbi of his era; I'm not sure if he passes the notability criteria. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that I am not sure from where our article's transliteration of his surname is sourced; the only source I could find about him in Latin script (a German-language journal) refers to him as "Levi Fanta". (Fernbach is not identical with him.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as not notable. He appears as a signatory (one of several dozen) on a historical document; a transcript exists of his gravestone and of two eulogies about him; he has a passing mention (one sentence) in a critical review of a book on the history of the Jews in Würzburg. (Were the article History of the Jews in Würzburg to be made, I suppose he could get the same there.) Not enough, I think, to confer notability to an 18th-century rabbi. The correct spelling, incidentally, is almost certainly Fanta, the name of a large Jewish family from Prague. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:56, 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. czar 02:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Alssema[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage about him instead of just quotes and articles from him. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. none of his media appearances are referenced. As a body language expert has he published any books or wrote scholarly articles for psychology journals. No. LibStar (talk) 14:20, 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. czar 02:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enoch-Jude Danquah[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Google finds no substantial coverage in independent sources. IMDB gives only minor roles in two non-notable films. Previous articles about him have been speedily deleted under A7 twice. Largoplazo (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete actor with only minor parts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 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 02:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR with only a handful of generic roles (e.g. "Teenage Boy"). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:35, 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Aneja[edit]

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

WP:NACTOR Delete or Redirect to Kuch Rang Pyar Ke Aise Bhi: I think it's too soon for an individual article the actor has done supporting roles in some tv shows but nothing much in reliable sources to support notability. GSS (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet notable even by Bollywood standards. Engleham (talk) 11:47, 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. soft deletion as an uncontested PROD. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KenamicK Entertainment[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 17:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 17:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 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 keep as nomination is withdrawn. (non-admin closure) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roop Kumar Rathod[edit]

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

~~No evidence of notability. Guy Macon (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Speedy Keep Well-known playback singer [14], [15].--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 06:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was wrong. A search for ""roop kumar rathod"" at https://www.google.co.in shows plenty of evidence of notability. I just wasn't looking in the right places. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:52, 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. sufficient consensus after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial College Symphony Orchestra[edit]

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

No references found showing independent notability of the subject. Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage in independent sources. There's a mention here, but seemingly not much more. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: apart from the Daily Telegraph mention, all I can find are concert listings, so it fails WP:BAND – the only possible criterion that it could pass is "has won first, second or third place in a major music competition", but I can't find any evidence that the Symphuni competition took place again after its inaugural event in 2008, so this doesn't count as a major competition. The article was created by a WP:SPA, Gregory Froome, a former member of the orchestra. Richard3120 (talk) 15:42, 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.

[1] "$50,000 Szeged". Retrieved 26 July 2016.

[2] ttps://postimg.org/image/65m3tvuup

[1]

[2]

v t e Women's Tennis Association: Top Slovenian female singles tennis players
as of 22 April 2024
1. Kaja Juvan (131 1}) 2. Tamara Zidanšek (135 2) 3. Veronika Erjavec (169 34) 4. Polona Hercog (177 22) 5. Dalila Jakupović (206 1)
6. Nika Radišić (380 4) 7. Živa Falkner (481 24) 8. Pia Lovrič (501 28) 9. Nina Potočnik (630 31) 10. Ela Nala Milić (849 34)