Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 June	17 June >

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IKeybox[edit]

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

The article is about a non-notable password management service and app. Technically not eligible for A7 as it falls under software. There is no credible claim of significance. Neither is there any evidence of notability; fails WP:GNG as no reviews in reliable secondary sources. If we examine the popularity, the Facebook page shows 16 likes while the App Store entry for this shows a mere 17 ratings for all versions. This is a very low level of popularity; I see no reason why a non-notable, non-popular software article should be kept. Additionally, the article creator seems to have a COI here. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Can't find a single reliable secondary source so fails to meet our notability guidelines. DeVerm (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No proof of notability. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 01:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn McNulty[edit]

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

Non notable abstract painter. Fails on all counts of WP:ARTIST (no significant contribution to field/no major museum collections/not widely cited/etc). Before search turns up one Google books reference on the business of being an artist, and not much else. Current article is referenced largely with SPS. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find sales sites but not substantial articles about him. It appears that he is known in a single metropolitan area (Minneapolis). He could become more widely known in the future, but does not meet notability criteria today. LaMona (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Decepticons. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 17:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stunticons[edit]

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

This article doesn't establish notability. None of the references are used to cite anything other than in-universe details and trivial toy details. TTN (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Decepticons. BOZ (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to List of Decepticons. Some coverage exists (e.g. [1], [2]), but not finding enough to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Decepticons if a reference can be found for the voice actors. Otherwise, just redirect. Not much else worth carrying over. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 09:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hemi Ahio[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX. The Db-repost was declined per the discussion on the articles talk page but the notability criteria for boxers is still far from being met. Worth reading the talk page and the previous AfD from last October.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I made this in the passed, Boxer not notable yet following WP:NBOX. However I think the boxer will be close in the future within next year or two, Boxer is definitely qualified to fight for a regional title but of course needs to fight for one to get notable on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennyaha (talk • contribs) 00:29, 17 June 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a top prospect and plenty of readers want to know information about him, so why not have a page for this young boxer? He has been given the credibility that he deserves for his career with a simple and in depth written article that comes along with references and proof. He's won a regional title and is ranked in the top 100's by many websites and one sanctioning body that we know of, there could be more with other sanctioning bodies that we don't know of. If the other bodies showed their top 100 rankings this would be helpful for proof but unfortunately that's hard to find so the IBO is the closest we've got. He's notable, but just maybe not on a world scale, but defiantly in New Zealand. Other than the notability, this article is well sourced and written. At least it meets requirements unlike some articles about "notable" boxers. Those should be deleted before this is even thought of. Users need to understand he's notable no matter what, whether it's big or small, notable is notable. He's got a regional title and is being ranked in top 100's, and if that's not near notable enough, I don't know what is.Kidsoljah (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- He has not won a regional title, he has won a National title. Trust me when I say this I do want this article up there and I am for this article to happen, but unfortunately according WP:NBOX he isnt notable. Like I said before I have made this article in the passed but was deleted and rightfully so. Plus a IBO Ranking is not a notable ranking since they use Boxrec as their rankings. And even if IBO does become a notable ranking it would need to be in the top 15 not top 100. --Bennyaha (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article was created WP:TOOSOON. Not yet notable enough as a boxer and routine sports reporting is not enough to meet WP:GNG. The keep arguments are not valid WP arguments (why not?, lots of people want to read about him, and being a prospect shows he's not yet arrived).Mdtemp (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to yet be a notable boxer. More importantly, WP:GNG is not met because the references consist of routine sports reporting like fight announcements and results. I agree with the TOOSOON comment and that the reasons put forth for keeping the article are not good ones for WP. Papaursa (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 06:45, June 23, 2016 (UTC) 06:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 NHL Expansion Draft[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the location of the event is not event yet known, it is probably too soon to create the article about it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's fine, considering the occurrence of the event is basically guaranteed. I'll clean up all the "TBD"s tho/ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As far as I can tell, the name and location of the 2017 expansion team has not yet even been selected. The Las Vegas Black Knights is one contender, but that choice has not yet been finalized. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is confirmed as happening and rules have been set in place, so any speculation is verifiable speculation, so this does not fall under WP:CRYSTAL. Of course, the article needs to be better sourced and unverifiable speculation removed. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article is well-sourced for the mechanics and background of the draft and there is at least one reliable source (the AP) who has stated it is certain to happen. If the report turns out to be false, then the article can be deleted. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to hold off on voting one way or the other for now as during the time period of this deletion review the league will announce the timetable of any potential expansion. Not knowing the location of this potential draft is not a valid reason for deletion, in most cases an expansion draft is usually held in the same location as the yearly league draft. Deadman137 (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per my previous comments, I now officially vote to keep this article as the draft is now a confirmed event. Deadman137 (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update to Strong keep as the Las Vegas NHL team and thus the event's existence has now been officially confirmed. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep – The concerned bodies scheduled its occurrence and wrote its rules. Fdssdf (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I want to note that the article's deletion nomination occurred before many details were known. Fdssdf (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the NHL's expansion to Las Vegas is now confirmed, and the expansion process has now been clarified and published, so any WP:CRYSTAL concerns that may have existed when this AfD was opened are now no longer valid. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Uncle!!! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gangnam murder case[edit]

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

This is an article about the stabbing of* a woman in a bar toilet. The incident is unfortunate of course, but the news is quite ordinary. It led to anti-misogyny protests that were - in my opinion - not enough to lend a notability credence to this news article. I propose that this article be deleted if deletion discussions concur. Xender Lourdes (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some people may think "Gangnam murder case" is quite ordinary of course. But I think we must place these incident in social context ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc). Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This placement in social context should be written in the article itself, and should not be original research. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know. But I don't mean that of course. See the news sources above and sources of the article in korean wikipedia. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Idh0854, as mentioned by Finnusertop, you need to mention details in the article, otherwise this will be considered just a standard news story. For your assistance, and despite being the nominator, I have expanded the article with a few news reports that talk about the incident (including the citation of The Economist you provided). I don't know whether this improves the article, but I've tried some. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move to Draft as it's too soon to tell whether this is an enduring event. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted following "delete" closure after input on my talk page. Sandstein 19:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Idh0854 reasoning. and sources presented.BabbaQ (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The murder received significant coverage, but yes, WP:NOTNEWS. However, it has also had impact on Korean society, triggering debates, discussions, activism, etc ([8], [9]) and the discussion continues even now ([10]). This seems to make it was Wikipedia:Notability (events)/Wikipedia:Notability (crime). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (WP:CSD#G3 (blatant hoax)) by User:Nthep — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDan61 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 16 June 2016‎ (NAC)

Princess Karina of Yugoslavia[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP and likely hoax. The Karađorđević dynasty is fairly well documented at Wikipedia (see also Karađorđević family tree) and there is no mention of either Princess Karina nor her parents, Prince Yuriy or Princess Victoria. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really love to hear from @History lost royalty, the article creator, about where he's sourcing this info/ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have removed the house because I have made a mistake when reading a book and the documents. I keeps remembering the Karađorđević dynasty and I stupidly placed it there. I placed the name there because in some documents it says the Arsen of Yugoslavia had a son called Paul of Yugoslavia who had a son called Nikola of yugoslavia. Nikola married 'Anna' and then it goes on. Continuing from this to Karina. I have got a little contact with Karina and Yaroslav (her brother) and she send me a picture of her Princess of Yugoslavia title.

Therefore I will do all my best to find the correct house and this is not a hoax. Thanks for reading — Preceding unsigned comment added by History lost royalty (talk • contribs) 20:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (WP:CSD#G3 (blatant hoax)) by User:Nthep — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDan61 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 June 2016‎ (NAC)

Prince Yaroslav of Yugoslavia[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP and likely hoax. The Karađorđević dynasty is fairly well documented at Wikipedia (see also Karađorđević family tree) and there is no mention of either Prince Yaroslav nor his parents, Prince Yuriy or Princess Victoria. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have removed the house because I have made a mistake when reading a book and the documents. I keeps remembering the Karađorđević dynasty and i stupidly placed it there. I placed the name there because in some documents it says the Arsen of Yugoslavia had a son called Paul of Yugoslavia who had a son called Nikola of yugoslavia. Nikola married 'Anna' and then it goes on. Continuing to Yaroslav. From this I have got a little contact with Yaroslav himself and he send me a picture of his Prince of Yugoslavia title.

Therefore I will do all my best to find the correct house and this is not a hoax. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by History lost royalty (talk • contribs) 20:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @History lost royalty: A "picture of his title" is not going to suffice: anyone can doctor up a document and take a picture of it. We need proof from reliable sources. Also, as the Karađorđević dynasty appears to be the only legitimate claimant to the erstwhile throne of Yugoslavia, if Prince Yaroslav is not a member of that family, it seems unlikely that he is legitimately a "Prince of Yugoslavia" at all. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @WikiDan61: The only proof I have is the certificate he showed me and a family tree from him. When I have been in contact with him he did say that he didn't want to give too much information.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling White[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:BIO. His company might be, but WP:Notability is not inherited, and the only coverage I can find about him as a businessman online from WP:RS, aside from the Indiana Business Journal article cited, is brief mentions in connection with the company. He had some local press coverage in 2014 on his unsuccessful record attempt, but I can't see that this makes him notable enough for an encyclopaedia article. OnionRing (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There was a mention in US News and WR yesterday, but no biographical material. The sum of the sources in the article, at Google news, and at Google books, does not create a picture of someone who has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time (as per the nutshell of WP:N). Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overall containing nothing at all minimally and basically convincing for any notability, there may be a load of sources and information there but simply nothing actually suggesting acceptance yet. SwisterTwister talk 17:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Slater[edit]

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

Doesn't meet any of the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN: not elected to an international, national or sub-national office, no significant press coverage, and no 3rd party sources to meet the WP:GNG. Being a failed candidate, an official of the local branch of a political party or a superdelegate doesn't meet any WP:Notability standards. Tassedethe (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear lack of long-term notability. No claim to notability under WP:NPOL AusLondonder (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete peoples whose highest claim to fame is being vice-chair of a US state federal party affiliate are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A politician who gets coverage mainly from running for office. Does not satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. Not finding significant independent RS coverage to pass GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he's notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to stake notability onto the election itself. But being a superdelegate to a political party convention does not clear the bar in and of itself, and nothing else here does either. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatfix[edit]

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

The awards are uniformly for being a new and promising product, which is the press relations equivalent of Not yet notable. Everything else is just a notice of funding, DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply too soon, there's coverage and information but that's expected for a 3 year old company and there, aside from that, is nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Tamanian[edit]

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

Not remotely clear how he passes the WP:GNG no evidence of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this has actually existed for quite some time and it should've frankly been deleted sooner, there's nothing at all here for any applicable notability since the works have and are not permanently collected thus there's simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC. Several source searches are not providing the coverage needed to qualify an article. There's this source published by a news source that the subject has republished on his website, but not finding much else in terms of significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient indepent sources to establish any kind of notability.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and appears to be promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 01:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Shooting of Eulia Love. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 17:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eulia Love[edit]

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

Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. Any coverage of her by reliable third party sources are related solely to her death. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. No evidence that the person shows any semblance of notability per Wikipedia standards. It is possible that the events around her death could be turned into an article, but that would take work and more sources than are showing right now. —C.Fred (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Shooting of Eulia Love — I've added two sources suggesting notability of the death. A JSTOR search reveals several sources describing it as a "well-publicized" killing. BLP1E seems to apply.--Carwil (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the added sources is simply a reprinting of a government document. I'm not sure that counts as coverage by a third party. It looks more like a primary source, since it's produced by the police about an event the police were involved in. The second source isn't actually coverage of the Love death, but coverage of a more recent one and saying it had similarities to the older event. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's tough to find full-text coverage from contemporary newspapers and magazines in digital archives (though Google Books snippets show there were some), but multiple sources, including the ones I've just added either describe the case as "well-publicized" or refer to it as "the Eulia Love crisis" for the city.--Carwil (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that it was well publicized, but as NOTNEWS says, most newsworthy events aren't notable in their own right. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is still referenced decades later in documentary though. What makes this less notable than Harlins? No rap lyrics? Ranze (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what you're talking about since I don't listen to rap. Being referenced in a documentary isn't significant coverage. Being the subject of a documentary would be. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Herald-Examiner editor Jim Bellows writes in his memoir, The Last Editor: "At the Herald we ran a 22-paragraph story on the front page. A few days later we ran another story on page one. And a few days after that we ran another front-page story, this one illustrated by a smiling photo of a young Eulia Love."

He goes on to quote from LAPD Chief Darryl Gates' memoir, The Chief: "The terrible shooting of Eulia Love on January 3,, 1979, would turn into a powder keg. For the next ten months, the city of Los Angeles and the police department would be in utter turmoil, fomented by relentless newspaper stories that played up the facts selectively and turned a mentally unstable woman's death into a nightmare that continues to haunt the black community and the LAPD today."

Additionally, the LA Times published its coverage of the story (multiple stories and an editorial, it appears) as some kind of separate booklet: Mitchell, John, and Doug Shuit. 1979. Eulia Love: Anatomy of a Fatal Shooting : Facts Disputed. Los Angeles, Calif.: Los Angeles Times.

I think GNG is met here.--Carwil (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was never was GNG met. It wasn't nominated because GNG wasn't met. It was nominated because it is a case of BLP1E. All the coverage centers around the singular event of her death. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, can we move to Shooting of Eulia May Love ~~per WP:SNOW~~?--Carwil (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per SNOW? I'm not sure where you're seeing the snow storm. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By agreement then? You're the nom, and the move would shift from a BIO1E to a notable event. (I don't find this kind of process pickiness enjoyable.)--Carwil (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it "pickiness" to follow proceses or actually question the use of an improperly used term? That's pretty lacking in good faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move per Carwil and WP:TITLE. WP:GNG met as nominator confirms. Hmlarson (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Carwil, etc. I remember this event, it was a significant news story of that year. Montanabw ^(talk) 08:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Niteshift36 (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move. @Niteshift36: Do you agree with keep the article and changing the name? If so, this can now be closed as a speedy keep, withdrawal of nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why we're already deciding that the "death of" article is or is not notable. That's not something I'm entirely convinced of. This discussion should be about THIS article, as it stands. Why aren't we talking about delete and redirect? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were. I see enough support for an article; I don't think we should delete and begin afresh, and I do think this history needs preserved. Therefore, my !vote is keep. Further, I think this isn't the right title, but that this is a useful redirect. Again, my recommendation is to keep. Ultimately, I think it's keep and move, but move is a subset/offshoot if a keep outcome. —C.Fred (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Kentalky[edit]

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

Subject has won non-notable awards. BLP article sources does not meet WP:RS. Above all, subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Stanleytux (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are of dubious origin. Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO and Comment Article creator was blocked as a sockpuppet; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Coal Press Nation. --Drm310 (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable musician. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: - Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO criteria. Aust331 (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails MUSICBIO. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 01:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deuli mali[edit]

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

Not at all a notable subject. Fails WP:GNG. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 13:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subjects lacks notability. Meatsgains (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't spot a single reliable source. All we have is basically a WP:SPS website of the alleged community itself, and we never consider those to be acceptable because of issues such as Sanskritisation. So, fails WP:GNG. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marxent Labs[edit]

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

The company is about five years old and has just 40 employees, however it is the subject of an in-depth 4-page article in Forbes. There are also several good local sources like this and trade press.[11][12][13]

A few years ago I might have said they were clearly notable and would have been correct, but the community's notability standards have increased for commercial topics, to the point of virtually prohibiting articles on startups that aren't clearly and overwhelmingly notable. The Forbes article is the only truly in-depth, mainstream, national source I have found, whereas we require "multiple". Many editors don't count local press for notability and the trade press articles are not substantial, in-depth works. The company's size and age are also factors. That being said, there is enough content in reliable sources to have a small article that is reliably sourced.

I have a financial connection. The problems with the current article, such as relying heavily on sources that only briefly mention the company and an unreasonable focus on products, are inconsequential. If the article is kept, I will rework it up to a GA level of quality. However, I am leaning more towards the community's preference being to delete and so did not want to work on it without seeing if it would survive AfD. CorporateM (Talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Analyzing the paragraphs in the Forbes article: (omitting short transitions that don't say anything much)

Mild Puffery/personal: para.page: 1.1, 1.3 2,1 2.2 3.2 3.3 3.4

Puffery: . l.12, 1.7, 1.8 2.7 3.5 3.6

General industry comment: 1.4, 1.5 2.4 3.7

NPOV description: 1.6 2.5 2.6 2.8

that gives a little less than 25% acceptable content. None of it indicates such things as market share, stability, acceptance in the commercial world,academic discussion.

So the qy I ask CorporateM is why did Forbes run the story: because of the unusual nature of the firm or its history--not really, its pretty standard. Because of the general interest in any VR firm? to some degree. Because they are running similar stories on all VR startups? I haven't checked that, but it's possible. Because they thing that of all VR firms this is the most promising or the most exciting? There's nothing in the so try to suggest that, and Forbes is objective enough not to pretend otherwise--which is why we can use them as a source in the first place. Because a company principal or press agent convinced a Forbes editor or reporter that since they should choose this one? CorpporateM, I think you've suggested to me in the past this is the usual reason for press coverage of small companies. DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that is really an accurate representation of what I've said about PR's influence on the media... I haven't read the Forbes piece and am not in a position to speculate about the author's motives... not really advocating one way or another. CorporateM (Talk) 23:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For this particular article, the references are trivial, and the accomplishments such as to be appropriate for a press release, not an encyclopedia article. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an excellent reason for deletion, and it is not necessary to specify exactly the relevant contributions of each half of the combination. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Company not notable at all and the article is purely promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn with no delete !votes (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 15:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

InstallShield[edit]

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

Okay, I'll be bold here. A recent article in The Wikipedian talked about a company's attempt to get a Wikipedia article for their product because their rival company's product has a page. This is, of course, an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but in this case, it has merit. InstallShield is sourced to one source (the other being a press release) and it only talks about the parent company, not the product at all. Fails WP:PRODUCT. shoy (reactions) 12:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging recent article editors @The Anome and Green Cardamom as well as the article author @WWB. shoy (reactions) 12:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 12:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 12:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I am really getting tired of all these AfD nominations that simply look at the state of the article concerned. There is plenty of coverage of InstallShield - try clicking on the 'books' link in the nomination for example. --Michig (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This company played a significant role in the development of personal computing (and is probably well known to those who spent a lot of time using Windows 95 or XP). I added a few sources to help substantiate this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike InstallAware, InstallShield is actually notable. —Ruud 10:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for the ping, shoy. I'm the blog post's author and, as I explained there, while the current article is not great, sources to reinforce its Notability do exist. That said, most of these are from the late 1990s and early 2000s, which will present a problem for bringing it up to date using RS sources. Nevertheless, Michig is exactly right, see also: WP:SURMOUNTABLE. WWB (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What happened to WP:BEFORE? A cursory look at the Chicago Tribune refs does give the flavor of a recycled press release, but the product is notable. If you read further down in the Wikipedian article, it says: "Although the InstallShield entry contains inadequate citations now, they definitely exist. Some of the stories are quite old, so they are not online, but it’s my opinion there is enough substantial reporting to justify their inclusion. There’s Crain’s Chicago Business in November 1997 with 'Installation-software firm set for leap into corporate arena: raising money to push beyond vendor market' and InfoWorld with 'Installation software vendor to ship enterprise version' from June 1999, and more. The software has received less press recently, but the snarky IT news site El Reg has mentioned it twice in news stories this year. Taken as a whole, it’s my professional opinion that InstallShield meets the Notability requirement. 'Other stuff exists' need not apply." As the Chicago Tribune article says, if you used Windows in the past, you've probably used IS. Limited versions of IS were distributed with software development tools because MS laid down some installation requirements but did not supply its own application for doing it. Surprisingly, Install Shield Limited Edition apparently still ships with Microsoft's Visual Studio 2015 Professional and Enterprise editions.[14] Glrx (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This software tool is certainly notable. --Dcirovic (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of hits on HighBeam Research. Google Books reveals substantial hits, too, including this archived article from InfoWorld. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rommel Mijares[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:BIO or WP:NSPORT. Founded of non-notable company, and ranks 317th in a darts league in the Philippines called Darts Pilipinas. No significant coverage online for him or his company from WP:RS. OnionRing (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as classic deletion material, examining the article found nothing minimally convincing of any actual convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet any notability standard. Rlendog (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Several searches are not providing adequate sources; does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreativ[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Anup [Talk] 11:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 11:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 12:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 12:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly comes no where near meeting WP:CORP or WP:GNG written like an advert, could have been speedy deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete advert for unnotable co. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject does not meet notability guidelines and page reads like an advertisement. Meatsgains (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Having reviewed and refined the offered references, many of which were primary or mere registration listings, and none of which support the superlative assertions in the text, the most substantial that I am seeing is the Newgen Issuu page, which is about the founder rather than the firm, and about him as a member of the publishing organisation. Nothing indicates more than a run-of-the-mill company going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG - and probably meets WP:CSD#G11 given the promotional claims. AllyD (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would've honestly explored speedy and PROD, nothing minimally convincing from a still hinted advertorial article that is still not satisfying notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FutureMarketer[edit]

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

This has been speedy deleted once, but recreated again, so I am sending this to AfD. The subject is a Singapore based company founded in 2015. I see no credible claim of significance. Neither do I see any evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH as none of the references available cover the company in detail. In fact, some of them only quote certain people associated with the company. I also think this is WP:TOOSOON. Not to mention that the article is hopelessly promotional as well. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm seeing 2 credible claims of significance, the partnership with the school, and being featured in Forbes. Adam9007 (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I myself speedied this and I still confirm it since none of this applies for any convincing notability, a newly started company still gaining momentum thus not yet notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficiently sourced corporate puff. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No adequate notability. The efs are essentiall promotional. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a one year old marketing company trying to market itself on Wikipedia. As for the claim by Adam9007 that the company was "featured in Forbes", that is incorrect. One of their employees got briefly quoted in Forbes, and the company was namechecked. That is many miles away from any sort of "feature" of the company, which would be a major article about the company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dcirovic (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Zaino[edit]

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

Zero coverage in independent reliable sources as is required to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing at all for any actual independent notability, examining the article found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 17:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REVE Antivirus[edit]

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

This is the fourth time it has been recreated so I am sending this to AfD (also technically not eligible for A7). There is nothing which indicates that this software is notable (nor any credible claim of significance). Coverage is restricted to slightly modified press releases such as this. We have many anti-virus software. What makes this notable? When I couldn't find evidence for notability, I wondered if it is at least popular. However the Facebook page has 427 likes which indicates a very low level of popularity. I do not see any reason why we should keep an article about a non-notable software product. WP:NOTPROMO applies here as well. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically per nom - note also that the "PR Newswire" reference is from a site specifically dedicated to publishing press releases. I would advocate for WP:SALT if the creator recreates, but none tried to engage them yet except via CSD boilerplate notices, so not yet.

@Wrtamal.bd: Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. The article "REVE antivirus" will most likely be deleted again, unless you can provide reliable sources demonstrating the "notability" of the subject (which roughly means that it has been the subject of attention of independent reviews). Notice however that if those sources do not exist, it is not a problem that editing will fix. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. and salt, as specified above. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additionally, @Wrtamal.bd:, if you have a potential WP:COI with the subject of this article, you should really declare it. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After searching for usable references and failing to find even one, I must agree with LemonGirl942 that it is not notable and thus fails the guideline. DeVerm (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dixon D. White[edit]

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

I'm nominating this after sitting on it for a while, to see if additional coverage came available. It'd originally been nominated for a speedy, but there was enough of an assertion of notability to where it passed. The story behind this is a little unusual, but here goes:

In April 2015 a guy posted a video on YouTube about racism that received media attention. The coverage appears to be centered around the time of the video's release and there's really not a lot past that point in time. I think that this article is probably the most recent, from September 2015, and it's really more of an opinion piece where White is brought in to comment than about Dixon himself. Now what makes this a bit murkier is that someone posted to Reddit claiming that the video was all a hoax. It's validity is in question, considering that they backtrack eventually (after being questioned by other redditors) and try to say that they were only commenting on a blog post they found somewhere.

Hoax or not, my basic concern here is that ultimately this person appears to only be known for one video posted over a year ago. The coverage wasn't overly heavy and ultimately it never translated into anything more than your typical coverage of someone posting a viral video. If he'd gone on to post more videos that gained coverage over time that'd be different, but I don't see where this is the case here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I simply don't think Dixon D. White is notable enough to retain as an article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's a "hoax" only insofar that Dixon is not a "real person", it's a character, which is a nuance that many seemingly had not grasped at first. The guy behind (whose real name I won't post on-wiki, possible BLPvio without a source?) still uses the Dixon name on Facebook and explicitly calls it his pseudonym. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha - thanks for clearing that up! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself would've also nominated had I found it today, simply nothing actually convincing and it's only coverage from the apparent events and such, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 18:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dhruv Narayan[edit]

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

Part-time actor, appears to be non-notable, promotional tone Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a CV, not an article. I can find nothing on him other than his appearance in cast lists. James086 ^Talk 07:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not finding anything else so far, only a politician with this name, nothing here is convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Rodriguez Gelfenstein[edit]

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

Individual has insufficient notability as either an orthodontist or an owner of racehorses. Fails both GNG in general and the guidelines at WP:NHORSERACING in particular. Appears to be mostly self-promotion, mostly sourced from the business web site, and what's not from in-house sources has significant copyvio. While Blood-Horse is a RS for horse racing, this article appears to also have copyvio from the farm profile that BH did on this fellow's ranch. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - after my PROD was deleted, I researched a bit more and found the following articles which draw attention to his socialist revolutionary ties in Venezuela, raising question about where he got the money for his $20 Million TB facility, private plane, horse purchases, etc. He is referred to as an international businessman with ties to the socialist revolution in Venezuela: Bloodhorse, questions wealth, a leading buyer of stallions in 2014. Perhaps the focus should change to his notoriety as an international businessman with ties to a politically troubled socialist country. There are quite a few more articles in Spanish than in English. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the ranch meets notability, we could write an article about it and include a section about him. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 19:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If we wanted to expand this article a little bit per Atsme, that would probably do the trick. As it sits, it's a puff piece. The farm is probably in a similar situation; sort of on the line between notability and not. The horses, definitely not. I have other projects so this one isn't a priority for me, but if others want to work on it, I'd be willing to withdraw the AfD once the issues are addressed. Montanabw^(talk) 02:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had a little quiet time to research this a bit more hoping I'd find more articles in English than in Spanish. No luck. I think it's something we could always come back to in the future when there are more RS to utilize. As it is now, it's all just speculation so I'm ok with a delete. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete puff article about a non-notable ranch owner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yep, puffy with problematic sourcing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark E. Curry[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:BIO. All of the references are either passing mentions of him as head of a company of unknown notability, or as head of an LGBT rights group of equally unknown notability. The HuffPo reference is written by him, so not a WP:Secondary source. Even if these groups were notable, WP:Notability is not inherited, and I can only find passing mentions of him online in WP:RS. OnionRing (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find anything that suggests notability as per WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also examined every one of the sources and can confirm nom's findings. Every one of the sources offered is either something he wrote himself, a short quote from him (both primary), or an article about something else that doesn't even mention him. Not one of them contributes to notability, which requires multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail. Msnicki (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining the article found no convincing signs of any independent notability at all. SwisterTwister talk 17:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Curry's work with Executive Pride is worthy of notability, particularly given the organization's rising presence in the LGBT Rights movement as noted by CNN and the Washington Post. It is possible that Executive Pride deserves a wikipedia page before Curry, in which case I'd be happy to make one, but Curry is backbone of the organization. Dublin2020 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Music single. There is clear consensus for a merge of this article amongst most of the editors who contributed to this discussion. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 15:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DVD single[edit]

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

Non-notable kind of music single. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if sources can be provided. From what the article says (which seems accurate enough) it certainly does not seem to be inherently non-notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Keep or Merge to Music single, which presently has no content about this verified aspect of music singles. The Recording Industry Association of America has certified some DVD singles as platinum and gold. Some coverage exists, but it will take time to sort out content about the format itself and sources about artist releases on DVD singles. Some sources about the former are listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Wolf, Jessica (May 25, 2003). "RIAA lauds DVD singles". Retrieved June 10, 2016. (subscription required)
"DVD Singles Can Be Chart Success". DVD Intelligence. August 17, 2001. Retrieved June 10, 2016. (subscription required)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion rationale suggests little thought has gone into it. It's a significant (if minor) format. A merge would be fine. --Michig (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in to Music single - DVD single hasn't really caught on anywhere so it's more or less unknown and personally I think it's better off Merged in to Music single where it hopefully would be better expanded/improved, –Davey2010^Talk 13:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Music single, seems like format specific fork anyway, not sure how much potential would exist to write about/ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnik Monroe (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. The only album they released that can be called "notable" was only distributed regionally through Tower Records stores, not through a major label. Furthermore, their association with Ryan Hadlock does not make them notable, as notability is not inherited. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage or references from significant sources. Those provided are trivial/non-notable. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing really convincing in the article and no coverage found from web searches. --Michig (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it seems to fail WP:BAND after some searching. Virond (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BAND. Their album is also listed for AfD and that too is failing. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tana Goertz[edit]

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

PROD removed without explanation, and without the addition of reliable sources. This is a minor, way minor celebrity, who apparently speaks for Trump sometimes, and had a career that does not make her notable in her own right. Does not pass GNG, does not pass politicians' guidelines. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She has not garnered enough coverage as either a Trump campaign spokesperson or a reality TV personality to be considered notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as by far only seasonal notability with noting actually being convincing aside from those apparent events and thus nothing to suggest there would be anything else enhancing for solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spam poetry. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 17:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spam Lit[edit]

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

Having attempted a cleanup, the only suitable external source left is the NPR story which doesn't seem sufficient to justify the page. The rest is a promo for Ben Myers and the stuff about Horse_ebooks doesn't really belong here. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 16:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - While there isn't a whole lot out there covering the term, it is significantly notable to warrant keeping the page. Meatsgains (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spoetry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or Merge with Spoetry (suggesting we keep that article only because it's older), and Rename the result to Spam poetry. There's poetry and literary prose in spam email to get around spam filters which has been written about quite a bit, and there are people who create poetry from spam. The former (which right now is called "Spam Lit" but only because of a Guardian article) is the more notable, but there's no reason not to mention both, since they're often covered together and obviously related. "Spam poetry" is mentioned in many places (far more than "spam lit"), but sources call it different things (talking about poetry breeds poetic descriptors like so many roses cut by their owners' diamond shears). "Spam poetry" is both among the most used and the most plainly descriptive. Sources are easy to find. I can link them later if someone wants, but it just took a quick googling. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect isn't appropriate as the two phenomena are very different. 'Spam lit' is just one type of spam and not notable in my opinion - it could be mentioned in passing at Spam but I maintain this page should be deleted. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 14:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree. See my response at the other AfD (no need to have parallel threads) :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge perhaps if needed as there's certainly nothing actually convincing for its own article, nothing to suggest this can stay as is currently. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A joint consensus appears to have been reached on this page and a similar one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spoetry. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 09:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ^^ agreed — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. General consensus is to keep after two-relists. The only delete !vote isn't a certain !vote; closing this as keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 15:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frank De Mulder[edit]

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

My searches have simply found nothing better at all and there's nothing convincing where I would've frankly PRODed but it likely would've been removed because of the apparent magazines connections, but aside from that, I'm simply not seeing anything else actually convincing. It seems there's also not an article at the other native Wiki. Notifying past taggers involved with this article JamesBWatson, DGG and Rrburke. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: In an article which has been edited by 20 different editors, picking out three who last edited five years ago, two of whom nominated the article for deletion and the other of whom tagged it for sourcing, and pinging them looks dangerously like canvassing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson Not all my intentions of course, I notify these because I presume they want to comment since they tag the article for issues. SwisterTwister talk 21:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

probably Delete. I don't really want to say he's definitely not notable, but the material currently present in the article doesn't seem to show notability: no worksin major museums, or major critical works about him. DGG ( talk ) 08:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC from sources I have been able to find. It's likely that more are available. Some source examples are listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Focus (published by Focus)
Stern (published by Stern)
Esquire
Stern
GVA
Style

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though the article does not show notability. If you Google him you will see, add the word photography. Also add use the news tab. Some things may not be linked due to nudity, I do not know the policy on that but I will look it up because I saw at least one article that should be included. Jadeslair (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Northamerica1000's analysis and my searches, which confirm notability. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big Hits and Nasty Cuts (The Huntingtons album)[edit]

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

The subject of this article seems to be a WP:HOAX. I am unable to find any proof that this subject ever existed. Originally, per the article's edit history, an editor had overwritten this article with what appears to be the subject at Prime Times: The Tascam Tapes, but the track listing at that article (by the same group) seems to be somewhat different. Otherwise, I'm not able to find any references regarding this subject's existence. Steel1943 (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe the history of File:Hunt-bighits.jpg could hold some clues. Steel1943 (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per this, it turns out that the file was for a different album. Steel1943 (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails verification. Even if it could be shown to have existed, it isn't notable and wouldn't be useful as a redirect. --Michig (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Planet FM 94 Islamabad[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2011, no assertion of notability, COI tagged since 2011, article creator User:PlanetFM94 was an SPA blocked the same day as a spammer. Deprodded as "licensed stations are usually notable" which is not true in the least, thus here we are at AfD. MSJapan (talk) 05:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Licensed stations are generally considered notable, see WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. Article appears to have NPOV. ~Kvng (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that all stations are notable even if they're not present in reliable secondary sources or even if they're suspected as hoaxes? Speaking of hoaxes, in case you're not aware, there are articles about TV and radio stations which are suspected hoaxes or do not really exist at all, specifically the ones based in the Philippines; some of which have been deproded by you. Such deception has been an issue for years at some WikiProjects like WP:TAMBAY and WP:WPRS. 121.54.54.171 (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@121.54.54.171: Thank you for this information. I have recently looked through a number of pages that have the WP:TAMBAY project banner and was surprised at the amount of poor sourcing or lack of sourcing on these Wikipedia articles.Steve Quinn (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is important. The station definitely exists, you can listen to it yourself here and elsewhere. The site does seem to be a bit of a mess but I found one live page indicating a relationship between Planet 94 and Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation. ~Kvng (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - COI editing, Single purpose account, and so on. This topic is not covered in reliable sources at all, nevermind signifigant coverage. Obviouly, the intent of this article is to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. Also, thanks for catching this @MSJapan:. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 121.54.54.171 (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, per WP:NMEDIA the core notability criteria that a radio station has to meet to be keepable are that it (a) is duly licensed by the appropriate regulatory authority, and (b) produces at least some of its own original programming rather than operating as a pure rebroadcaster or translator of another station. But those criteria do both still have to be verifiable somewhere. A radio station does not get over NMEDIA just because its own primary source website verifies that it exists — internet radio streams that don't pass NMEDIA typically also have websites, and really determined hoaxers have created their own "websites" to support the existence of fake radio stations that existed only inside their own imagination. So it takes reliable sources to pass NMEDIA rather than mere unsourced assertions. Accordingly, I'm willing to revisit this if somebody can locate the proper sourcing necessary to verify that this station satisfies the inclusion criteria, but in this state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ummy Video Downloader[edit]

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

NN software product, WP:PROMO, WP:ENN, doesn't meet WP:GNG, has been templated for months. Unsourced, because safety of the program per Norton is irrelevant. SPA's one and only edit. MSJapan (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Similarly can't find any coverage of the product in any major software publications. Avram (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ah, so they managed to sneak in this one. Technically not eligible for A7 but there is no credible claim of significance here. This is just one of the many "Youtube video downloaders". No reliable secondary sources exist for this. Also delete per WP:NOTPROMO. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. Mention in an antivirus software directory is not an indicator of notability. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jaclyn Glenn[edit]

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

Delete Lack of sources, and the article lacks notability by notability guidelines. As it stands does not meet Wikipedia criteria. Many links are Primary, nothing reliable that is secondary as the article uses mostly blogs as sources. There are many YouTube personalities with large followings that do not meet Wikipedia's standards for a stand alone page. I do not feel based on the current setup of this page that this individual ranks in that category either. In short fails Fails WP:GNG, and fails WP:BASIC, as most information available via Google is Blog based, or interview sources, nothing Primary. Makk3232 (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't demonstrate enough notability for inclusion. The only sources cited (and the vast majority of sources that actually exist) about her are blogs. Not enough mainstream media coverage. This girl could potentially become notable in the future, at which point an article would be appropriate, but now's not the time. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 18:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nomination, blogs do not constitute significant coverage, and somehow slipped by wikipedia moderators upon creation. Seems very promotional including links to twitter, youtube, facebook of this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.250.253 (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable YouTube personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe we should close this debate and this should be a speedy delete at this point in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makk3232 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blogger and some of the negative links may even be a BLP violation. (And when yours truly !votes delete, that really should count double! ). Montanabw ^(talk) 05:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Nomination spells out lack of Google sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.116.210 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is a non-notable internet related article. --24.184.132.160 (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:It has been a week and six people have put Delete as a choice based on the evidence I have presented. How long is this process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makk3232 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all the reasons already given. To the previous poster, AfD's last at least 7 days and this likely will be closed late on the 7th day or during the 8th day. Please be patient, that is how the process works. Safiel (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) SST flyer 16:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Crowley[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic article about a fictional character. Clearly set up as in-universe fictional bio (which we have plenty of examples of) but it consists of nothing more than plot summaries of each of the three films in which the character appears (which is WP:FORKy; each film has an article already). There's a malformed merge (no target for discussion was ever set) from the DEPROD, but there are two separate issues with a merge: one is that the article would need to be split three ways (which is a fixable issue), and the second is that plot summary already exists in those articles, and all this would do is bulk it out with unnecessary detail.. I therefore see very little utility in a merge, and there are several potential WP:PRIMARYTOPICs to redirect to, which pretty much moots that avenue as well. MSJapan (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough about Crowley in the likes of NY Times Reviews--add 'hatchet' to the quoted name in the above search tools to see what I mean--that I believe a fictional character bio is warranted, albeit not in so much plot detail. BUT, that can be solved by regular editing, and I don't see any particular call to expand this into a list of characters of the hatchet film franchise, although that would be another reasonable non-delete outcome. Jclemens (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per meeting inclusion criteria through coverage in multiple independent sources. Not all fictional characters merit inclusion, but multiple film characters Luke Skywalker, Chewbacca, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda, Leatherface, Chucky, and Michael Myers (among so many others) are glad that some do. Jclemens's points are quite valid. The article needs use of the many available sources, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) SST flyer 16:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SigmaStat[edit]

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

NN statistical software package, WP:PROMO. I'd remove the promo, but there would be nothing left and I'd be accused of blanking the article. The HighBeam search stats cited as the reason for deprod are product reviews, press releases for product launches, and other information that serves only to verify existence (such as "we used SigmaStat to run X analysis." Notability of software is notoriously difficult, and there is no indication that the software is used any more than any other package. MSJapan (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What's the issue with product reviews? SigmaStat has been the subject of in-depth reviews in The American Statistician [15] and InfoWorld [16]. I'd call that significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Qwfp (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that MSJapan seems to be on a campaign to bring my deprods to AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by product reviews in reliable sources: [17], [18]. If you think you need to stubify the article because of WP:PROMOTIONAL issues, go ahead and give that a try but it's not something that AfD needs to be involved in. Rather than deleting the article or its contents, it would be better if you would tag the article or describe your concerns in a talk page post and give other editors time to make improvements; WP:NODEADLINE. ~Kvng (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turnour Prize[edit]

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

NN academic award. Notable recipients were not notable at the time of reception, and 3/4 of the list is NN people without WP articles, making it a somewhat indiscriminate list. Does not inherit notability by being given out by a school. MSJapan (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Prize is well documented in Sri Lankan media ( [19], [20] ) in terms of its origin ( [21] ) as well as many notables who gain it in their early life ( [22], [23], [24], [25] ). Many such awards exist under the catagory Category:Student awards. NaminiGunasena (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - So it gets routine news coverage - WP:NOTNEWS. Notable people got it before they were notable - WP:NOTINHERITED. Many such awards exist - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What's important is why this award is notable on its own, and I'm not seeing it. Everything you're posting is WP:V of existence, and that's not disputed. MSJapan (talk) 07:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:SCHOOLCRUFT. This is a school prize whereas other entries in Category:Student awards are awards by higher education institutions or national awards.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 10:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable high school award. Dan arndt (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Crown (Royal College Colombo)[edit]

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

Notability not established. College-level sports award, not limited to one per year. The fact that it is given out by "the oldest college in Colombo" doesn't make the award notable. Notable award-winners were not notable at the time of receipt of the award. MSJapan (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:SCHOOLCRUFT. This is a school prize.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 10:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Obi2canibe. Dan arndt (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete of zero significance outside the school. LibStar (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Studebaker[edit]

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

Footnote in United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio, 2006#District 3 is sufficient Jb45424 (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously lacking any long-term notability. Fails WP:NPOL AusLondonder (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A candidate for office does not get an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for being a candidate — and that's especially true for a candidate who withdraws their candidacy in advance of the election. If you cannot demonstrate and properly source that she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of her candidacy, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article because of the candidacy itself. However, nothing here satisfies that condition at all. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable failed candidate for public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Gain[edit]

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

The most relevant notability guideline is WP:AUTHOR. The Yale World Fellowship may indicate that he is "regarded as an important figure" by peers. He has a history of being briefly quoted by other journalists, such as: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. His list of publications is extensive, but nearly everything longer than his newspaper articles is a report or documentary published by one of the two NGO's he has headed. Worldcat holdings are sparse, and Google Scholar citations are modest. I've been unable to find reviews of his work. It is unclear whether the subject is notable. Worldbruce (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 22:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of secondary reliable source. - Mar11 (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Vance[edit]

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

Cannot find notable coverage by secondary sources. Current article lacks in-text citations and excessively promotional in tone. Searching name in Google and Google News to try to find sources gives many Jody Vances, suggesting this individual is not notable enough for own article. Fails WP:NBIO EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable sports journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in any sources that I could find LAroboGuy (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Vance is a well-known national broadcaster in Canada. I've done some clean up to the article and added references. Could use additional clean up and refs, not deletion per WP:DEL and WP:ATD. As is, this article meets WP:GNG criteria. Hmlarson (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved. Thank you for your efforts. Given the improvement and the sourcing, I'm more neutral to weak-keep. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hmlarson. Adequate indicia of notablity. Montanabw ^(talk) 07:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Claim to fame is "she became the first woman in the history of Canadian television to host her own sports show in primetime" that is never substantiated. — Wylie pedia 18:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some further referencing improvement is still needed here, but Hmlarson has done enough to demonstrate that she does pass WP:GNG regardless of any quibbles about whether any individual detail in here passes an SNG or not. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tempo (retailer)[edit]

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

Non notable retail store, There's 3 cites about it going in to administration but other than that there's nothing, As it went in to administration in 2001 I'd imagine there may be a few sources offline however that's just a guess - There may be no sources offline whatsoever, Anyway fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 17:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as my searches have found nothing particularly better at all and there's nothing else convincing there would be the depth of solidity. SwisterTwister talk 21:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A former electrical goods retail operation, about which the given references document a familiar cycle of boosting expansion (suggestive article about seeking market funding) then administration when they ran out of cash struggling to compete (Daily Mail 2001 – via HighBeam (subscription required) ). Nothing here suggests encyclopaedic notability for this company whose height seems to have been to be 5th largest in its local sector. For me, any identifiable coverage is routine and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trackheadz[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, search of references on Google do not show any recent reliable articles. In addition, the references in the article does not seem to be independent from the subject. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I myself would've pursued deletion also if it wasn't that someone else apparently reviewed this, there's nothing at all for any actual convincing notability and the sources are certainly not better; my searches also found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 21:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Tom29739 ^[talk] 20:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lixion Avila[edit]

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

This article appears to have been created originally as fancruft, and was full of "quirky quotes." Since that has all been removed, there's is absolutely nothing that would assert the notability of the subject. MSJapan (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Weak keep. Quirks do not amount to notability but a high citation count does. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Neutral. I really don't know what to do about this one. Of course the nom was correct that the article was just a piece of fancruft. However, the subject might be notable. He does have a PhD (I added a ref), and has published a bunch of academic papers. GS gives him an h-index of 23, with top cites of 230, 179, 169, 134, 122. That's not bad, although I am not sure what the standards in meteorology are. However, many of these papers look more like technical reports to me even if they are called journal articles. He has many articles called "Atlantic hurricane season of YYYY" where YYYY is a given year. I may be unfair but to an outside observer they look rather similar in structure, more like technical/statistical reports than research articles. He is an elected fellow of the American Meteorological Society (I added a ref). So perhaps one could make a case for passing WP:PROF here, although it looks iffy to me. In terms of WP:GNG/WP:BIO, he is a weatherman, so naturally there are lots of hits in GNews. Most of these seem to be mentions of him reporting the weather. However, I did find at least one biographical NBC news-story specifically about him[33]. There may be others. He did get some awards within NOAA and NHC (I added a ref to one of them and they are all mentioned in his staff profile page [34]). These awards don't seem to me to be sufficiently prominent to confer notability but I may be wrong. The profile page also claims that he was twice nominated "an Emmy Award for his participation in a hurricane program preparedness". Haven't found independent confirmation of that. He does have an IMDB entry[35], although there isn't much there. All in all, I am still stuck in neutral here. Nsk92 (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this detailed work. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Here is some information about the AMS Fellows criteria. It seems that each slate of nominees represents no more than 0.2% of its membership. I'm not sure exactly how this compares to being a fellow of the societies that usually meet WP:PROF like the IEEE or APS. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE claims that "The total number selected in any one year does not exceed one-tenth of one percent of the total voting Institute membership", so it's not dissimilar. No longer a penguin (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fundamentally, a local weather caller. Doesn't seem to be notable Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral @MSJapan, Xxanthippe, Nsk92, EricEnfermero, No longer a penguin, and Deathlibrarian: As a member of the Tropical Cyclone WikiProject, I feel that it wise to comment with some facts but not take an opinion. Lixion is a "Senior Hurricane Forecaster" at the US National Hurricane Center, which is an international weather forecasting agency dedicated to tropical cyclones and other weather for the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific basins (Basically Africa to the middle of the Pacific Ocean). As a result I personally feel that does not make one of its forecasters essentially "a local weather caller", since we can have TC's affect numerous island nations at the same time. As has been noted above Lixion has authored a number of articles which have been published in a variety of journals, however, the Atlantic/Eastern Pacific hurricane season of YYYY ones are not research articles, unless you consider him to be researching the tropical cyclones of YYYY while forecasting and warning others about them.Jason Rees (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Nevistić[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shreyas Porus Pardiwalla[edit]

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

I'm less than convinced about notability. A search brings up mainly social media, and he appears to double up acting with being a clinical psychologist, but on the other hand the article does have a couple of refs, so I'm bringing it here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NFILM. Only one fact in this article is substantiated by sources: all four references indicate that Pardiwalla had a lead role in Yaariyan. But his part in Sanam Re was small (he's not mentioned in the article), and his only other screen credit hasn't happened yet. He has won an award but without a source it's difficult to know how important the award is. Beyond that, he doesn't seem to have done anything notable. I'm disturbed by the way the article tries to enlarge on things, like a resume. He was in an award-winning play, but he didn't win the award (and if he'd been one of the leads, I'm sure we would have been informed). He was in a lot of ads, and nine are listed, but getting jobs as an extra in ads is not very difficult, so this may not mean much. He was "seen in" this, he has "done" that, all very vague and promotional (the article was originally speedied as WP:G7). I agree with nom that his MA in clinical pysch makes it look like he changed careers before he really took off in acting, and that acting is now something on the side. ubiquity (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it seems the best known work he's had are....advertisements and several at that, nothing was convincing from my examinations and there's nothing else to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 18:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Salford. Not much discussion here. I might have called this a WP:SOFTDELETE, but the redirect suggestion seems reasonable and is in keeping with WP:ATD, so I'll go with that. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of Salford Students' Union[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. The article is unreferenced and I don't see any sources except few passing mentions.I totally agree with the nominator of the 2007 AfD, in other words. The article was unfortunately kept as kept through nobody involved seemed to have made an argument grounded in our policies. It seems that this AfD was made in the context of some other student union mass AfDs, and all the keep votes seem to be on the theme of "I disagree with mass nominations of student unions" - and in other words, not a single one is a valid rationale. Sigh. I'd encourage Islander to look at his 2007 contribs and consider renominating all those student union articles that were kept. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I have no objection to a redirect to University of Salford, if desired. Neutrality^talk 20:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kilimarathukavu Temple[edit]

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

Unsourced temple failing WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pic in article with caption "Main Sreekovil"

Merge, probably to a list-article of temples. The article asserts the temple is thousands of years old; if that is true the place would be significant on its own, even as a geographical feature. I have seen multiple AFDs in recent months about other single temples in India. Deleting them separately is not the way forward to build appropriate coverage in Wikipedia. What is needed is a list-article, or multiple list-articles, to which marginally-notable temple articles can be redirected, at least temporarily unless or until sufficient sourced info becomes available to justify a standalone article. Here there is a pic but little other information, not more than can be covered comfortably in a List of temples in Kerala (or similarly named). There are a number of temples covered in and its subcategories; each can have a row with pic and short info about them, in a table in a list-article. Certainly the list-topic would be valid. I'm willing to start such a list-article, but it would be better if someone local or otherwise interested could help shape it (should it be just about Hindu ones, separate from Jain, other ones? or is a narrower geographic focus covering all types of temples better?). Is anyone else willing to help? Help build, not destroy. :) --do ncr am 21:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. By the way, complaints about notability of 4 temples currently show at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hinduism.

If we have a reference that justifies the thousands of year old creation then we can simply keep the article. If not, I don't agree with redirecting it to List of Hindu temples in Kerala. The list should include only blue linked articles per WP:NLIST. There is no end to number of temples in India and we are not directory or travel guide to facilitate such a list. The state of Maharashtra has a minimum 1743 illegal shrines and legal ones would be abundantly more. There is no reliable reference which will quantify the number for us and its obvious why no one will ever bother to count them. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for linking to List of Hindu temples in Kerala, an existing list-article that mostly has bluelinks. I assume you mean that the temple is a Hindu one (not obvious to me). A list-article can include non-bluelinked articles, per wp:NLIST. It is good practice to include redlink items too, at least when sources support the items' importance. Here we do have an assertion of the temple's importance, although it is not properly sourced, and we have a photograph (which is a kind of source itself), and I have added an external link to this non-English video on Youtube about an event there. It is thin, but I think there's enough reason to have a table row about this temple in the list-article. --do ncr am 23:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also thank you for link to news article about demolition of illegal shrines. If there were 1743 temples, it would be fine to list them. Note Wikipedia has a list of 85,000 historic sites in the United States. I'd like to know how many temples there are likely to be, though. Does "shrine" = "temple"? In U.S., there are roadside memorials often set up where a fatal car accident happened, which could be termed "shrines" and which are no doubt technically illegal. But such "shrines" have little to do with temples or churches that have congregations and worship programs and staff and so on. --do ncr am 23:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what does "Sreekovil" or "main Sreekovil" mean? The term is used in other Wikipedia articles, but I don't see it defined anywhere. --do ncr am 23:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is this Facebook page about it found by searching on just the term "Kilimarathukavu".

The facebook page has multiple pictures of the temple and also photos of Malayam language papers (perhaps newspaper articles about the temple?) which may be useable sources.
There is http://malayalam.kadakkalamma.org/en/art_rituals.html this source about festivals] mentioning one of 3 "pageants" is starting at Kilimarathukavu.
The search also turns up

"Kilimarathukavu Sivaparvathi Temple" which appears to me to possibly be the same place.

Anyhow, searching on sources having exact phrase "Kilimarathukavu Temple" is too limited. Try:

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

And I don't know how to search in Malayam, which probably has more coverage, or in Hindi. --do ncr am 23:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree on including red-links in lists. As said before, we can simply keep the article after the claimed notability points are verified and then en-list it. Until then they are dubious and simply false. The point in providing that ref about illegal shrine/temples was to simply tell that these temples are plenty much in India. Unlike a registering authority, like for the long list of US buildings you mentioned, there is no authority in India that keeps track of registering temples. Of course, if the temple has a trust formed then that will be registered. They will also pay taxes to concerned government bodies. But I am not sure there exists any unified body just to track temples. @SpacemanSpiff: Have you got any idea of this? Also, mere existence, through photos and facebook pages, do not make things notable and you know that. Being age-old is not necessarily a point of notability too. That’s something which was the consensus of this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. George's Forane Church.
Sreekovil means Garbhagriha. There is a redirect to it. I don't speak/read Malayalam either. Hence pinging others who might help to translate and look for sources in Indic languages. @Tachs and Salih: §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malayalm word Sreekovil means Garbhagriha or sanctum sanctorum; Kovil means temple. The words are dravidian and pronounced with minor variations in different parts of South India.--jojo@nthony (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmadhyaksha, HR&CE for Tamil Nadu (except Thillai Nataraja Temple, Chidambaram) and Devaswom boards in Kerala. —SpacemanSpiff 07:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This website thekeralatemples.com lists a total of 1673 temples in Kerala and that’s not all inclusive. There is facility for you to submit information about some temples you know. Am not sure how they verify the submitted info and how the site falls in our WP:RS criteria. We currently have around 370+ article in Category:Hindu temples in Kerala by district. I wonder if the list gets populated to include more ~1300 names of possibly non-notable temples, the list would also tend to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE.§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) st170e^talk 15:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Explosive mine[edit]

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

Implausible search term, especially since the lede says "A mine is...". I'm not sure what this started out as, but it is now a page that lists "related items." It is a duplicate of the "Military" heading on the Mine dab, except for two entries (which have been added to that page, even though they're sort of tangential). This page was also linked to the dab (and vice-versa), so all it really does is add an unnecessary layer of complexity to the search. MSJapan (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eminently valid set index and labelled as one. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Andy that it appears to be a valid Set Index article. DeVerm (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Boychuk[edit]

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

fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Another in the seemingly unending string of NN article creations by Dolovis, this one is more absurd than most, lacking even the threadbare and unqualifying claim to notability some display. The subject had an undistinguished amateur career as a fourth-liner, and an even briefer career as a low-minor leaguer who barely held on to a roster spot. There's never been an iteration of NHOCKEY or NSPORTS under which the subject would qualify for an article, and nothing that would pass the strictures of WP:ROUTINE to pass the GNG. Ravenswing 09:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly non-notable and doesn't even come close to meeting GNG or NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SOFTDELETE--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Libya Holdings Group[edit]

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

Simply nothing at all to suggest anything notably acceptable and my searches have found only a few links, the two best news sources listed here is still not enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I'm on the fence for this one. The subject is mentioned in passing in reliable sources but not covered extensively. Meatsgains (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe delete, there's only passing mentions in the reliable sources. Tom29739 ^[talk] 20:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DZSD[edit]

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

I don't think that DZSD is existed in the area. I need your comments on this guys. I found out that the source of its existence is only at this link, but it doesn't seem that this is included at GMA Network Website. Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 01:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 8 June 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, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator, the only source that can somewhat confirm its existence is the one linked above but even that isn't reliable. I was also able to find this. Meatsgains (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination. Coderzombie (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, per WP:NMEDIA the core notability criteria that a radio station has to meet to be keepable are that it (a) is duly licensed by the appropriate regulatory authority, and (b) produces at least some of its own original programming rather than operating as a pure rebroadcaster or translator of another station. But those criteria do both still have to be verifiable somewhere. We have seen hoax articles created about fantasy radio stations that didn't actually exist at all, so it is not enough to merely claim those things as true — the claim to passing NMEDIA does not actually get the radio station over NMEDIA until it's supported by reliable sources. So I'm willing to revisit this if somebody can locate the proper sourcing necessary to verify that this station satisfies the inclusion criteria, but in this state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DWBB[edit]

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

Does not exist in Baguio City. The user must be warned for this. Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 01:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 8 June 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, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable I could find. Fails WP:N — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, per WP:NMEDIA the core notability criteria that a radio station has to meet to be keepable are that it (a) is duly licensed by the appropriate regulatory authority, and (b) produces at least some of its own original programming rather than operating as a pure rebroadcaster or translator of another station. But those criteria do both still have to be verifiable somewhere. We have seen hoax articles created about fantasy radio stations that didn't actually exist at all, so it is not enough to merely claim those things as true — the claim to passing NMEDIA does not actually get the radio station over NMEDIA until it's supported by reliable sources. So I'm willing to revisit this if somebody can locate the proper sourcing necessary to verify that this station satisfies the inclusion criteria, but in this state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYSB-AM[edit]

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

I don't want to repeat myself on this. The Station is clearly a hoax. Scrambling in my mind that GMA Network is not aware of this. The author must be warned again, or need to block him indefinitely. Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 01:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 8 June 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, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable by itself just because it is owned by a notable media network. Notability is not inherited. Sixth o f March 06:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, per WP:NMEDIA the core notability criteria that a radio station has to meet to be keepable are that it (a) is duly licensed by the appropriate regulatory authority, and (b) produces at least some of its own original programming rather than operating as a pure rebroadcaster or translator of another station. But those criteria do both still have to be verifiable somewhere. We have seen hoax articles created about fantasy radio stations that didn't actually exist at all, so it is not enough to merely claim those things as true — the claim to passing NMEDIA does not actually get the radio station over NMEDIA until it's supported by reliable sources. So I'm willing to revisit this if somebody can locate the proper sourcing necessary to verify that this station satisfies the inclusion criteria, but in this state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DXRC[edit]

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

I don't want to repeat myself on this. The Station is clearly a hoax. Scrambling in my mind that GMA Network is not aware of this. The author must be warned again, or need to block him indefinitely. Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 01:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What evidence is there that this is a blatent hoax? I'll admit I'm vaguely confused by what comes up in google, but nothing pops out as obviously a hoax. Granted, it could be an attempt at subtle vandalism, which would suck, but I'm trying to find your arguments for it being a hoax and can't find them. Fieari (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you take a good look at any sourced articles here on any site, I couldn't find anything regards to DXRC existence which actually does not. And if you're referring to GMA 7 website (which actually you don't yet know about anything on Philippine stations), there is no such thing as DXRC existence in Zamboanga province. The editor didn't cite any source since its creation. Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 00:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have a look at this. This doesn't look like a blatant hoax to me. Pinging Fieari and Hamham31. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a circular reference since it uses Wikipedia as one of their sources of information. Sixth o f March 01:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created on 22 Jan 2016. The link I posted existed before that (see web archive). DXRC also seems to be mentioned here and here. Somehow I get a feeling this is not a blatant hoax. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No mention of the subject in GMA Network's website that could prove its existence [36]. Sixth o f March 01:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Fieari: and @Lemongirl942: This is another evidence that DXRC in Zamboanga does not really existed, instead it was DXRZ owned by Radio Mindanao Network in the Philippines. Any comments from you guys are still welcome. Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 00:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, per WP:NMEDIA the core notability criteria that a radio station has to meet to be keepable are that it (a) is duly licensed by the appropriate regulatory authority, and (b) produces at least some of its own original programming rather than operating as a pure rebroadcaster or translator of another station. But those criteria do both still have to be verifiable somewhere. We have seen hoax articles created about fantasy radio stations that didn't actually exist at all, so it is not enough to merely claim those things as true — the claim to passing NMEDIA does not actually get the radio station over NMEDIA until it's supported by reliable sources. So I'm willing to revisit this if somebody can locate the proper sourcing necessary to verify that this station satisfies the inclusion criteria, but in this state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination. While there were three keep votes, one of them was not based on policy and another seemed to be based solely on the argument put forth by the first keep. As such, I've closed as a no consensus rather than a keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Wire[edit]

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

Not notable enough. Fails WP:NOT Coderzombie (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)*[reply]

keep Article newly created by an SPA, presume WP:PROMO. However, it is what it claims to be, a new, conservative news and commentary website created by a notable journalist and employing other notable journalists. There is some in-depth coverage of it, New York Magazine here:[37], and although this publication is less than a year old, it is cited regularly by notable, mainstream publications see news search on "the daily wire" + shapiro [38].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, Most of this notability is due to Ben Shapiro as a person (because he is of course notable), not this particular publication, don't you think? Coderzombie (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep With the proliferation of internet sites supposedly reporting the news but seldom in an unbiased fashion it is nice to check with Wikipedia to assess just how slanted is their reporting and learn who is behind the site both editorially and financially. It allows the user to then decide how much credibility they want to assign to what they read on these quasi news sites or whether they are worth reading at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpqal (talk • contribs) 00:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The argument should be based on notability of the page as per wikipedia guidelines. Not a valid argument. Coderzombie (talk) 10:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is notable, the page just requires some improvements. Meatsgains (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it's notable? There are no WP:RS covering the subject. Coderzombie (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) SST flyer 16:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pollara[edit]

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

Non-notable company. There are many many passing references to surveys conducted by Pollara, and a couple of rather short pieces about some of its personnel, but I have not been able to find a substantial independent piece about the company itself. ColinFine (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've frankly considered A7 and PROD, nothing at all for actual convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer – see WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Butler, Peter Marshall (2007). Polling and Public Opinion: A Canadian Perspective. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. p. 43. ISBN 0802038190. Retrieved 2016-06-05.
  The book notes:
  
  Like market researchers who determine who will buy which products, opinion pollsters have become important advisors on how to adapt the needs of organizations to the social environments in which they exist.
  Much of the credit for this goes to the work of political party pollsters. Two polling firms have been particularly influential in the systematic use of issues surveys and polls by both parties and governments: Decima Research and Pollara Strategic Polling and Market Research. Decima was founded in 1979 by its chief pollster Allan Gregg; in the 1980s and in 1990s it became what one writer refered to as the 'General Motors of public affairs polling in Canada' (Sawatsky, 1987, p.165). This is mainly because it was the firm of choice for the federal Progressive Conservative governments of the 1980s and a succession of Tory provincial governments across Canada. After the defeat of the federal Progressive Conservatives in 1993, Gregg left Decima and the firm underwent a management change.
  Pollara was founded in 1985 by Michael Marzolini who worked as the chief pollster for the Liberal Party of Canada. Like Gregg, he became a political advisor to the prime minster. Also like Decima, Pollara has expanded well beyond its political base to become a major supplier of research to other non-political organizations, including the pharmaceutical and health care industry, financial institutions, as well as the entertainment industry.
2. Deverell, John (1988-11-23). "New firm scores coup with perfect poll result". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2016-06-05. Retrieved 2016-06-05.
  The article notes:
  
  An upstart firm, Insight Canada Research, caught the national pulse better than any other published pollster during Canada's roller-coaster election campaign.
  Michael Marzolini, the firm's founder, scored a technical coup with a completely accurate forecast of the national popular vote for all three major parties.
  The firm's last poll before the Monday's election was released Friday night and gave the Progressive Conservatives 43 per cent of the decided vote, the Liberals 32 per cent and the NDP 20.
  The computer whiz-turned-analyst, who was working on contract to CTV television news, couldn't have given himself a nicer 31st birthday present.
  ...
  This year, while Martin Goldfarb's work for the Liberals and that by Decima Research for the Conservatives remained under party wraps, Marzolini ran what he says was the first "rolling poll" for a Canadian news organization.
  Insight Canada Research was later renamed to Pollara. See this source for verification of the name change:
  - Brehl, Robert (1997-02-07). "We're glum on guarding culture". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2016-06-05. Retrieved 2016-06-05.
    The article notes:
    
    The poll was conducted by Pollara, formerly Insight Canada Research, which is the pollster of the governing Liberal Party of Canada.
3. Stein, David Lewis (1987-04-23). "How Flynn would fare in election across Metro". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2016-06-05. Retrieved 2016-06-05.
  The article notes:
  
  This survey was conducted by an outfit called Insight Canada Research. I read it when I was sifting through some stuff I was not intended to have access to. Political reporters do this sort of thing from time to time; it comes with the territory.
  Insight Canada Research, I discovered, is a new polling outfit that provides a special Metro Toronto survey. It's run by two veteran "political consultants," Michael Marzolini and David Goyette, who usually spend their time helping politicians keep out of trouble.
  Apparently, Marzolini and Goyette have now decided to market their expertise. They are going to take periodic surveys about what people in Metro Toronto think about issues of the day.
  Alas, survey results are being offered only to politicians and businessmen. The big decision makers don't want vulgar journalists and the great unwashed public getting these vital statistics.
  So a few scribbled pages are probably all I will ever see of material from Insight Canada Research.
4. Delacourt, Susan (2012-01-06). "Many Canadians believe we're already in recession: survey". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2016-06-05. Retrieved 2016-06-05.
  The article notes:
  
  Canadians are "seriously" worried about the 2012 economy - more pessimistic than they've been in almost two decades, according to a sobering new poll on the outlook for the year ahead.
  Michael Marzolini, head of the Pollara polling firm, presented the gloomy findings Thursday to an Economic Club of Canada gathering in Toronto.
  "This year's results are the most pessimistic in 16 years across all the indicators that we have been testing since 1985," Marzolini said. "Canadians are now in need of hope."
  Pollara did extensive polling at the very end of 2011, among nearly 3,000 respondents nationwide, as it has for the past 27 years.
  Canadians were telling Pollara they were in a pessimistic mood a year ago, at the end of 2010, Marzolini reported. But their spirits have only slumped further in the past year.
5. Nolan, Dan (2001-02-12). "Day blew the election: pollster; It's a Liberal love-in; Abortion stance alienated voters". The Hamilton Spectator. Archived from the original on 2016-06-05. Retrieved 2016-06-05.
  The article notes:
  
  A Liberal pollster says Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day might have made a better showing in last fall's federal election if he hadn't foundered on the abortion issue.
  Michael Marzolini, president of Pollara Research, said polling done after it became clear Day threatened a woman's right to choose indicates he lost a sizable amount of support, especially among women voters.
  ...
  Marzolini's company has done polling for the Liberals for years, but it has sometimes missed the mark. Last year, his firm did polling in the mayor's race for the new City of Hamilton and said results indicated Bob Morrow would win easily. He lost.
  Marzolini did say polling indicated the Alliance's policies on law and order remained popular, but that voters found Day "would have to overcome this credibility gap (over abortion) before he could take the offensive on justice issues." In the last week of the campaign, the polling firm was predicting 170 seats for the Liberals.
6. Hatton, David (2008-01-23). "'Weakening' will feel like a recession: experts". Business Edge. Archived from the original on 2016-06-05. Retrieved 2016-06-05.
  The article notes:
  
  The poll, done by Pollara Inc. for the Economic Club of Toronto, showed 40 per cent of people believe they lost ground financially in 2007 and another 50 per cent expect their household income to fall behind the cost of living in 2008.
  Pollara chairman Michael Marzolini said that while 65 per cent of Canadians believe the country is in a period of moderate growth, 31 per cent expect the economy to improve and 26 per cent believe it will worsen. Another 61 per cent of Canadians believe the U.S. economy will worsen next year.
  ...
  Partly operating under its former name of Insight Canada Research, Pollara did all the polling for the Liberal Party of Canada during the 1993, 1997 and 2000 election campaigns. The company name was changed to Pollara in 1997.
7. Newman, Peter C. (2011). When the Gods Changed: The Death of Liberal Canada. Toronto: Random House of Canada. p. 274. ISBN 0307358283. Retrieved 2016-06-05.
  The book notes:
  
  The Liberals' own pollster, Michael Marzolini—the chairman and founder of Pollara, one of the best in Canada—was quoted in the Globe and Mail after the election was over, saying that Ignatieff's dull showing in the leaders' debates ...
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pollara to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's examples of significant coverage in reliable sources. They do not just show the company passing WP:ORG, but also highlight a clear significance of the company in its field, include some criticism and provide a reliable overview for its history. There is enough material for a decent article. Cavarrone 17:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As noted above, with the reliable sources provided by Cunard, the subject qualifies for notability. Meatsgains (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CHHIP[edit]

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

NN medical trial - it's basically the details for the trial linked in the EL, but had to have been put up by someone with access to the details, as they're not available to non-healthcare professionals at the source provided. I also cannot find a report in The Lancet (UK Oncology Journal) that appears to relate to this particular study, even with the principal researcher's name on it. MSJapan (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added the Lancet Oncology piece to the article. So far I am seeing a number of reliable but primary papers on the topic; nothing yet WP:MEDRS-worthy. --Mark viking (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Undecided~~ - [39], [40], [41], [42] indicate to me that the topic meets WP:GNG. I'm gathering that a different notability criteria is applied for medical topics. Someone please teach me about this. ~Kvng (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For notability purposes, I don't think there are different criteria for the med folk. We need independent RS. I think the sources you link to are likely reliable peer-reviewed publications, but not independent of those conducting the trial. I guess I was using "primary" to mean "not independent", which isn't quite right. Sorry about the confusion. Anyway, we need RS from other than the group conducting the trial. --Mark viking (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you're saying that although the sources currently cited may be published by a reliable source, they are not independent and so the golden rule is not satisfied here. ~Kvng (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. --Mark viking (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find any WP:INDEPENDENT coverage. ~Kvng (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harold K. Stubbs[edit]

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

Not notable local judge. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN low-level judge. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 15 June 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, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Balkowitsch[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable photographer. Outside of a little local interest he lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the note from Wikipedia regarding the lack of independent sources: there are at least three different newspapers and at least two government entities that are used as sources. What kind of sources were you looking for? As for the local non notable photographer comment, the subject is noteworthy because he is using a technique that has historical significance and is one of the few people in the world who is using this technique that he taught to himself. This is noteworthy in the art community and the historical community. His work is being documented and archived by government and educational entities and as he gets more noteworthy, this will be documented on his Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjf5280 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Coverage is mostly local but I think it's just enough to pass WP:GNG. --Finngall ^talk 17:08, 9 June 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, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are quite enough sources in the articles to pass WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Agree with Tjf5280 that he's not just some local photographer. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loreto Peralta[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable actor. Only one significant role of note, which doesn't really appear to be enough to establish notability. PROD was removed by article author. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON for this young actress.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Though she may have claimed notability for one role, she is covered extensively in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. regardless of the sources, which I consider to be only Press releases, wjhrever published. DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We would need two roles, one is not enough. Plus the total lack of sources means we should delete with haste.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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