Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 June	28 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. Very clear and actionable consensus to delete. This could have been closed earlier under the CSD criteria, and certainly the lengthy comments with excessive white space didn't do anything to help facilitate any sort of debate to keep the article. KaisaL (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Causal Neural Paradox (Thought Curvature)[edit]

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

This draft has multiple end references but no in-line references and appears to have two problems. First, it appears to be original research. Second, it is incomprehensible. (It isn't entirely syntactic English, but parts of it that are syntactically valid have no recognizable semantic content.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced gobbledegook. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This is a cut and paste by the original editor from his draft at Draft:Causal Neural Paradox (Thought Curvature), AfC template and all. This copy should be deleted and the article reviewed there. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is buzzword compliant, but doesn't make any sense from the mathematical, computer science or neuroscience angles. It reminds me of a typical result of a stochastic grammar computer science paper generator; local phrases are OK, but there is no global meaning. A search revealed no secondary independent sources for this topic. Hence it fails notability guidelines and should be deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G1. Utter gibberish that's lowered my intelligence just reading it. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If delete, then also delete Draft:Causal Neural Paradox (Thought Curvature). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I have also tagged the draft for deletion via MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utter gibberish that at Draft appears to has but the original reading. Note: This are semantic content sources but doesn't make article reference it fails no global editor; local phrases artic English, but that are syntactic Englist of a stochastic condary independent sources for this is no sense from there is article reviewed there. This copy should be delete. (Yes, I did put this AfD through a Markov chain text generator. Which I assume is also where the article text came from.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G1/G3. WP:HOAX that reads as if it was automatically generated by a random text generation algorithm such as mathgen. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Promote to featured article, put on the main page, and see if anyone notices~~ Delete. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider

I claim not, of omniscience. However, this piece's construct consists strictly of verifiable parts, that confluence to engender naive 'novel' lemma. Please delete draft. I hadn't realized of draft + non draft space submissibleness. JordanMicahBennett

Your comment contains as much sense as the article itself. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe What is your area of expertise? JordanMicahBennett 09:54, 28 June 2016 (EST).

Please absorb

@Xxanthippe In reducing thought curvature, I had absorbed https://www.academia.edu/13808654/Trigonometric_rule_collapser_set. Please absorb. JordanMicahBennett 10:14, 28 June 2016 (EST).

Delete. It is original research and fails to meet our notability guideline. I love how the editor demonstrates his non-use of computer aids for generating content in this AfD. DeVerm (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:G1 as per #2 of WP:PN - agree with others that it reads like computer-generated stuff, though it may just be that the creator is very very bad at English as the comment above attests. G3 does not really apply: an article void of extractable information cannot misinform readers. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that G3 does not apply. Using a machine to generate a fake article definitely qualifies as a hoax, even if it is nonsensical. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G3: pages that are blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes (including images intended to misinform) (...) - "misinformation" is "false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive". I believe an absence of readable information is neither "false" nor "inaccurate" - it is not even wrong.

Actually I think G1 and G3 are mutually incompatible. (But I guess none cares. This article will get down the drain under either.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least one famous hoax was meaninglessness masquerading as meaning. Not every hoax is a jackelope. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think that we should assume good faith when the author says it has meaning. If he thinks that it has meaning, it isn't a hoax, but it is patent nonsense. Since the author thinks it has meaning, let's let the AFD run its course rather than have an administrator unilaterally decide on WP:G1 let alone WP:G3. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has the author said it has meaning? He mentions "submissibleness", which is not a word. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume good faith on user conduct, unclear messages and the like. But if someone says the Earth is flat, I will not pretend to take their opinion seriously on WP:AGF grounds; I will only pretend they are actually thinking so, and are not a disruptive troll. Similarly, I cannot "assume good faith" that the article is not patent nonsense - maybe the creator thinks it is well-written and meaningful, but by any objective measure it is not. I see no reason not to proceed with G1. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is all that I meant by assume good faith, that the author takes it seriously. I do not consider the author to be a troll, which doesn't mean that the author should be taken seriously. (If I thought it should be taken seriously, I wouldn't have nominated it.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incompetency so advanced as to be indistinguishable from trolling... does not really matter if we AGF or not. Was Time cube a troll? Really, it does not matter. AGF is meant to mitigate against good faith disagreements, not over-the-moon nonsense. This deletion should have been speedied, and the author blocked for trolling. If he is able to contribute positively to the project, presumably he is also able to formulate a coherent unblock request. I think we seriously need to do some soul-searching if we think it's worth wasting time on contributors like this. WP:DFTT. Block 'em and move on. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see Wikipedia:Competence is required. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Do we still seriously believe that this guy is not trolling?? Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that the guy is not trolling but is sincere. That is why I invoked Wikipedia:Competence is required. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Quaint query

What is the depth of machine learning study amongst executive editors?
For whom this applies: http://machinelearningmastery.com/4-steps-to-get-started-in-machine-learning/

Post scriptum: I profoundly apologize par usage of term 'submissible-ness', in this deletion discussion, prior.
Satirical post scriptum: I steeply apologize par usage of apparently crude language.

Albeit, profound language assimilation engenders of non narrow comprehension potential. 1:15, 29 June 2016 (EST). User:JordanMicahBennett

Comment to the author - Do not disrupt this AFD by redirecting the AFD template on the article. The redirection has been reverted to allow discussion to continue. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template redirect?

@Robert McClenon I haven't a concept for how template redirecting transpires.
Albeit, I apologize. 10:08, 30 June 2016 (EST). User:JordanMicahBennett — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.170.15.229 (talk)

Thought curvature theory qualms

This theorem is really simple.

   **Break it down**
   It proposes a naive mathematical fabric for the creation of causal reinforcement learning. 
 
   We know reinforcement learning is viable from early research, where dopamine signals code for error. 

   Furthermore, we derive that some causal basis must persist, upon which perceptual learning abstractions form as child matures. 

   Combining these results mathematically, thought curvature theory proposes the causal basis, to ensue as learnt distinct basis units (manifolds of non-quantum properties). 

   That basis then produces coordinates in a higher manifold of interactions between these. 

   A supermanifold, then utilizes almost standard temporal difference learning routine, to choose basis units, based on the interaction paradigm.

   **An empirical causal reinforcement learner**
   There is no empirical proof (a running sample, though the constituent components are verifiable in polynomial time :)) of this 'novel' fabric, simply as I am a software engineering fellow, who does body building on the side. (not much financing thus far)
   The most powerful machine I could purchase (an i7 6700, 32 gig ram, 2 terabyte hdd, gtx 960), cannot reduce this fabric's computational requirement.
   As such, please allow this theorem to persist, hereafter.

  **Perhaps wrong**
  I am human, and so this theorem may contain certain errors. Albeit I garner from logical reasoning, and from mathematically tabulating certain work done by many actual PHD's, that 
  this theorem is of sound description/rigour.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.170.15.229 (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10:39, 30 June 2016 (EST). User:JordanMicahBennett

Thus far, I thank you

Thanks to all for support thus far, whether positive or negative. (Thanks user:Sławomir Biały and User:Robert_McClenon)
I admit, the script does seem computer generated. Ironically, the universe might just be simulatory (james gates' adinkra postulation)

and so, we may all well be machines, sputtering strings.

10:48, 30 June 2016 (EST). User:JordanMicahBennett

SHOWBALL DELETE Staszek Lem (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete

The math is justifiable. Super manifolds, manifolds, and temporal difference learning paradigm combine to form a schematic for a causal reinforcement learner.
If any high schooler pays attention in deep q learning class, he/she may observe that these learners don't typically use pooling.
If said high schooler likewise observes state of the art in causal physics learning, (uetorch) he/she sees that it uses pooling.

If the high schooler isn't stoned, he/she will soon recognize that these things appear to be opposites at first glance; pooling vs non pooling frameworks, though it may be sensible to combine these, because:
1)humans learn by reinforcement (dopamine signals encode error)
2)humans have some in built intuition of causal laws of physics at childhood (mama I know where that tower block will fall), particularly as new abstractions develop in the brain as child matures.

However, if the high schooler is stoned, he/she may instead utter delete the lesson sir or delete the lesson miss, not realizing that the lesson, embedded super manifolds as some higher order fabric, that mutated in sub manifold terms, particularly based on temporal difference plane.

However, the tutor can only attempt to review the lesson (though the lesson is not perfect, but begins to approach the combination of cause and temporal difference learning horizon) only after the high schooler has destoned him/her self.

JordanMicahBennett July 1, 2016, 9:55 EST

Crude language

Firstly, this 'new' fabric is only mathematically traceable (as far as I have logically derived) in manifolds, super manifolds, and deep q learning (where dqn is listed separately, though it has been shown to involve manifolds), all of which have been linked appropriately. As I (and or any non drunk individual) enhance the theorem, probably, more links shall intromit.

'Elegance'

I admit, the language use is 'elegant' (apparently non welcoming, though 'strangely' of sound grammar...hmmm)
However, such is simply how my mind chooses to reduce information.
(Though I have managed to condense my thought cycles to more typical expression styles in this deletion discussion segment) If I had encountered this article absent somewhat deep research, I would probably holler bs. Here is a short intro to dqn (to whom such applies): https://www.quora.com/Artificial-Intelligence-What-is-an-intuitive-explanation-of-how-deep-Q-networks-DQN-work/answer/Jordan-Bennett-9
I admit, the dqn overview above is my own, written a few months prior. I have found very nice dqn guides, but none is as clear as the above. The causal physics learner stuff is included in thought curvature article, so is official state of the art dqn stuff.

JordanMicahBennett July 1, 2016, 10:20 EST

Speedy delete as nonsense/hoax. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Worry not

@FreeKnowledgeCreator Worry not, as the deciding has been requested to be cast upon slightly more competent administrators, via user Xxanthippe
Ps: Please research dqn and uetorch, then read via Stahl et al. Easy up on the "ignorade"

JordanMicahBennett July 3, 2016, 6:58 EST

In addition to deleting the article, there would also be a strong case for blocking its creator for deliberate trolling. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

or on the basis of WP:Competence is required. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Disappointment in deletion suggestions (Arguments for Keeping)

I am quite disappointed.
While few commenters display some Math/Physics know-how, none (except myself) exhibits machine learning experience.
This is strongly ironic, displeasing, and incredibly worrying.

JordanMicahBennett July 3, 2016, 6:05 EST

Keep (Sited issues are inexistent)

   This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (June 2016)

This work is of novel nature. The lemma described is first introduced herein.

   This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia. (July 2016)

A reiteration: Such fabric is solely mathematically traceable (as far as I have logically derived) in manifolds, super manifolds, and deep q learning (where the latter, dqn (PDF) is listed separately, though deep learning has been shown to encode manifolds), all of which have been linked appropriately. As I (and or any other) enhance the theorem, more links shall perhaps intromit.

JordanMicahBennett July 3, 2016, 6:11 EST

Keep (Why Thought Curvature Theory is Notable)

I don't wish to come off as a know it all, as I am far far far (perhaps infinitely so) from omniscience.
Indeed, thought curvature theorem is sub-perfect.
The math described, is of-course, right, but extended parameters are considerable.
Thought curvature theory is of note because this lemma introduces a naive hypothetical structure for causal reinforcement learning.

Please help me in disseminating this naive, but robust, abstract geometrical concept.

I have been devoting quite a significant amount of energies into thought curvature's description/logic. I've went as far as neglecting software job in the past, just to pour time into this work.
If one observe's my portfolio, one observes that a significant portion of my resume for example, concerns machine learning.
The article's content is of sound rigour. To compose such, I had to grasp many topics, including quantum mechanics(particularly quantum computing)

We all (unless brain damaged) have billions of usable neurons. We must all attempt attempt to activate a great majority of them whilst making decisions.

Albeit, you guys may have recognized by now that I am one of you.

JordanMicahBennett July 3, 2016, 6:25 EST

Filling up the Afd page with nonsense comments, which seem intended to be as long as possible, is disruptive, and may be grounds for a block if you persist in such behavior. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Benefit of the doubt has been given after a number of speedy deletes, but no arguments to keep the article have been brought to the AFD debate. I was not salt at this time but would support an administrator doing so if recreation continues to be a problem. KaisaL (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shridhar Venkat[edit]

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

Notability issue has no significant coverage and has no independent reliable sources does not pass WP:GNG,Further it has been speedily deleted a few times [1] FITINDIA (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but Don't speedy this time -- I request that this article not be speedy deleted this time, even under criteria G11/G12 (or G4), since there is a potential argument to be made regarding the various sources, and the text is not unsalvageably advertissimal if notability were to be established. That said, reviewing the sources, I'm not convinced they are reliable or independent from the subject: **CEO hangout, clearly not reliable (user submitted).
- Akshayapatra.org, not independent.
- 2013hydcxoconfluence.lassibsociety.org ... I'm not sure. I suspect it is not independent, but can't demonstrate it at this time. I'm also not sure of it's status as a reliable source. This said, this may be the article's best bet at establishing notability, as it can at least be argued. Right now, I'm not convinced, and suggest it is not.
- efworld.org, not independent.
- yosuccess.org, appears to be either user submitted content, or paid content. At the very least, it's a publication that doesn't even have it's own Wikipedia article, suggesting non-notability of the source.
- www.internationalnewsandviews.com, user submitted content, thus not reliable.

So, given all the above, I will !vote delete. But again, I think arguments are possible, so please don't speedy. Fieari (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatantly promotional. If Fieari wants it kept, he'd better fix the wording promptly. Deb (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Deb, I think you have me mistaken. I want it deleted, just not prodded. Fieari (talk)
  - No, I get that. But you seem to be the only one who thinks it is salvageable. Show us how. Deb (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think it's salvageable. I think someone (not me) could possibly make an argument that it was salvageable, and I'd be willing to work with said hypothetical person, but I doubt this will happen or that it is possible. Fieari (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails on WP:GNG. Totally promotional. Hitro talk 20:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - blatant spam for non-notable businessman per WP:BIO. The charity he works with may be notable, but WP:Notability is not inherited. OnionRing (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ishraq Khan[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Sources are all youtube or linkes to gaming site stats, none are WP:RS. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable YouTube personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources are largely to youtube itself, which is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more sources please have a look. JasonTGriffith (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the person has helped out alot of people by giving people minecraft accounts and has done collabs with big youtubers and big servers. He is very notable in the youtube commuuinity. JasonTGriffith (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnotable YouTuber. Relies primarily on primary sources. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Non-notable internet personality. Fails at WP:GNG. Hitro talk 20:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per arguments above. TheDeviantPro (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Highbrow (Transformers)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. The current sources do nothing to help. TTN (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I am seeing no evidence of real-world significance. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article details the fact that the character exists and looks a certain way, doing certain things, but there's really nothing here of notability. This just doesn't seem appropriate. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite the substantial protests of the article's creator I am satisfied that there is a clear consensus to delete here. I note that the creator is very passionate and that WP:COI issues have been raised, however the concerns about a lack of reliable sources and a lack of evidence of notability raised by editors are what I am closing based upon here. KaisaL (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Radyo Kabayan[edit]

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

This is a non-notable internet radio station based in Philippines. There are no reliable secondary sources to verify the information. In addition, there is nothing to show that the radio station is notable either. Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - Fails GNG, WP:PROMO. CSD requested and declined. This article was (apparently) prodded, then DRVed by the creator, who is an SPA. The only edits made in two years are to this article. The article creator is WP:NOTHERE, and there is a strong likelihood that he will recreate the article if it is deleted, and seems to not be interested in following policies. MSJapan (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reason to salt the title. It has never been recreated and if the article is recreated substantially similar then it can be deleted G4. -- GB fan 23:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I was the one who PRODed this article but, as what has been told here, it was restored per the creator's request. Sixth o f March 21:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please Do Not Delete - Hello all, why you would like to delete the article? Radyo Kabayan is a valid Wikipedia article and have no issues on it since August 2014 the time it was created. I am not the owner of Radyo Kabayan nor a DJ or staff of Radyo Kabayan. First let me quote Wiki editor GB fan (talk) said as he/she decline the Speedy Deletion of the article by MSJapan,

"I can see how if you take all the evidence you can surmise that Jagan21 is Francis Ray Cecilio. There are other possibilities though. It could be someone who is a fan of the station and learned about Francis Ray Cecilio's back story that way and created the page. As far as the uploading of the logo, I have seen many images that editor's have uploaded claiming it is their own work, but with a little searching it is found on the internet attributed to someone and the uploader just took the easy answer.Looking at A11 it requires a plain indication that the article creator is the person who made/coined/created it or someone they personally know. There is no plain indication that Jagan21 is Francis Ray Cecilio or that they personally know Francis Ray Cecilio."

GB fan is correct that I'm not related to Radyo Kabayan or the founder of Radyo Kabayan but I know the history of Radyo Kabayan because I am an avid listener and a fan of Radyo Kabayan and for us Overseas Filipino Workers or OFWs, Radyo Kabayan is notable or important for us because through Radyo Kabayan we feel at home eventhough we are very far away in our homeland Philippines. Radyo Kabayan is not a bogus internet radio station. It is an online radio company under the umbrella of FRMC Business Ventures a duly registered company in the Philippines. Radyo Kabayan also has an official website www.radyokabayan.org, which is not created on some free website online maker. It has also an official iOS and Android app and last but not the least it has a Facebook group and fanfage wherein we Overseas Filipino Workers or OFWs around the world met online. So I am hoping for all your kind consideration not delete the Wikipedia article Radyo Kabayan. Thank you and have a good day to all... Jagan21 (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I accept that Jagan21 made this article in good faith, and reject WP:NOTHERE in this scenario, but it does appear that Jagan21 is currently unaware of Wikipedia's notability requirements. Unfortunately, merely being professional, merely having fans, merely existing is not sufficient for Wikipedia inclusion. The requirement is that it be reported on by reliable secondary sources, independent from the subject. This might be a review, or a newspaper article, or a TV mention, but having a website and having fans are not enough. Because KBYN here lacks this secondary sources, we do have to delete the article until such time that it achieves 3rd party notability. Fieari (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Please Do Not Delete~~ - Hello Fieari, if you are asking for notability of the article, I can give you a reliable sources, all were found online or in the internet that Radyo Kabayan is really a valid article. You've mention about a review, I will give you a review of Radyo Kabayan Official App in Google Play Store. Remember this source is entirely independent of the subject being covered because we're talking about App and please do remember also "Google Play" or "Google" itself is a reliable and verifiable source. No doubt about it. Right? You can find it HERE the reviews. And another one, Radyo Kabayan is listed in TuneIn Radio which is a reliable online radio streaming website based in San Francisco, California. Here is the LINK. You can also check that Radyo Kabayan has a lot of followers in TuneIn Radio. And also Radyo kabayan have a good reviews on AMFMph.com which is a reliable sources of Philippine based AM, FM and Internet Radio Stations. Here is the LINK. For the reviews just scroll down below the website. So that's why I did not hesitate to make a Wikipedia article of Radyo Kabayan because in line with Wiki Your first article, I know Radyo Kabayan demonstrate the notability of the article's subject matter and no doubt about it, it is from reliable published sources. Thank you and have a good day to all... Jagan21 (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Jagan21-- I struck through your second "please do not delete" vote. You can only vote once. Also, please sign yor posts properly by using four tiles in a row: ~~~~. See WP:SIGNATURE if you are not familiar as to how to do this.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jagan21. Before you go on, we need to define some terms together. Here at Wikipedia, we sometimes use technical jargon specific to our encyclopedia, and these jargon terms may not necessarily mesh entirely with typical English use. The first term to define is "reliable". Regardless of the English definition, the Wikipedia meaning of "reliable" is "possessing an exclusionary critical review process". Exclusionary means that the source cannot simply accept all contributions provided to it, even if it has a process for removing contributions later. (Note that yes, this means Wikipedia is itself not "reliable" by our definition!). Critical review means that a human being other than the author, in a position of authority, must have looked at the content and compared it to criteria based on widely accepted standards, such as journalistic standards or academic standards. Taken in whole, this definition of reliable excludes all "user generated content" such as google play reviews.

The second word we need to define is "routine", because notability establishment cannot come from "routine" coverage. Routine coverage is anything that basically says, "this thing exists", and nothing more. For people, routine coverage is birth and death announcements, wedding announcements, and similar such things. For businesses, routine coverage is appearance in lists of all business of a particular type, such as your tunein.com link. This is expressly excluded from our notability criteria.

The third term we need to define is "independent from the subject". This means that the information used to establish notability cannot be published by the subject of the article, or by anyone or any organization directly related with the subject of the article. Thus, we cannot look at reviews posted by KBYN itself to establish notability for it.

I'm sorry that it turns out this way, but unless a source such as a print newspaper, a notable (again, using our definition of notable!) magazine, a review organization with an exclusionary editorial staff, television news program, or other similar source has a detailed writeup about this internet radio station, we cannot include it in Wikipedia. Fieari (talk) 05:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fieari. I'm so sorry to say that I don't agree that Radyo Kabayan reviews on Google Play is not a notable one and the Google Play reviews in general. Remember, Google Play has a strict Developer Policy if the content is not acceptable, they will removed the app less than 72 hours without hesitation. Do you know that Google Play has always an editor that look up whenever there's a change of content and I can say, that it is in line of what you called meaning of "reliable" which is "possessing an exclusionary critical review process". We are talking here reliable sources according to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and that would fit Google Play reviews.

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia SHOULD NOT HAVE ARTICLE ON IT."

That's it. Thank you and have a good day Fieari... Jagan21 (talk) 06:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jagan21. Google play's removal policy is not an editorial review, nor is it exclusionary. If you submit a review to google play, it shows up immediately, without it having been looked at by any paid employee of google play. If someone challenges a review on google play, it is reviewed on the criteria of legality and clear harassment, not on the criteria of writing quality, factualness, structure, or importance. No review was ever rejected from google play because "that thing is simply not of interest to our readers". It is not EXCLUSIONARY. Thus, it is not reliable. Fieari (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fieari. I cannot argue anymore on what you said that ALL "user generated content" is not reliable but again I'm sorry to say that I cannot agree with you. Please do remember of what you called "editorial review" especially through online is also called a User generated content. For me. I would prefer the too many people who do the reviews (like the Google Play reviews) rather than only a single person review which is for me a biased one which does not conform what you said quality and factualness writing. Aside from that "user generated content" is not mention on Wikipedia:Notability guideline which is also misleading for me. I just understand as long the reviews, the mentions, the articles about the subject is from a reliable and verifiable sources such as Google Play or Google itself, it is already notable and have no arguments on it. This is very interesting, in fact, Wikipedia:Notability estates that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. So, I leave with you to decide the fate of Radyo Kabayan Wikipedia article after two years of existence with no issues or whatsoever. I have no power. I'm just a damn Wikipedia contributor only and happened to be one of too many Filipino fanatics of Radyo Kabayan online radio and I want to thank you also that you never believe that I'm WP:NOTHERE unlike the two editor accusations. Thank you for your time and again have a good day to you Fieari... Jagan21 (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have looked for sources to support this article and found none. The radio station does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. -- GB fan 23:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequarte sources in article. Search does not turn up sources. Fails notability tests.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to be without notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ElectroYoga[edit]

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

Unreferenced WP:Original research with no indication of notability per WP:GNG. Article is mainly about the pseudoscience of Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine). Can't find any mention of Electroyoga online in WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by article creator without comment. OnionRing (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The topic we are talking about is ElectroYoga. It's a newer word...not brand new - but it's time to define that word. There are lots of references to that word on the internet. Grounding yoga mats are a top seller - Infrared yoga studios are popular. A new word is being invented because of new inventions are being created and some of these new inventions are used in the practice of yoga.

Electromagnetic field therapy is Pseudoscience? Your opinion of this shows me that you are extremely ignorant of FDA approved technology and it's people like you that make sure the rest of the world is kept in the dark by deleting references to a technology that is safe to use and effective. In Canada, electromagnetic field therapy has been Heath Canada approved for depression since 2002 and the FDA approved it since 2011. Electromagnetic field therapy has been used for non-union bone fractures since 1976. Every major hospital uses electromagnetic field therapy for non-union bone fractures...The use of Infrared heaters in Yoga studios has been about for 15 years..Many incorrectly call it hot yoga, however you can sit in a steam room and practice hot yoga. The use of electromagnetic fields to heat the body IS NOT electromagnetic field therapy as you say. That is called diathermy.

ElectroYoga is a BROAD term that can be used as a type of music, a yoga event, a yoga mat. Yes a Tesla ElectroYoga mat can be used for electromagnetic field therapy - but is it really worth deleting this article because of one type of electroyoga that is mentioned?

And as far as internet presence and notability - the term electroyoga is extremely popular and many yoga studios are offering it. I will provide just a few links...It's even popular in arabic countries.

There is a major radio station in canada sponsoring an event dedicated to ElectroYoga in the park..It's not electromagnetic field therapy like you say it is. It's grounded yoga mats - while listening to electronic music presented by the radio station...

http://teslamania.tv/category/electro-yoga/

http://www.har.com/electroyoga-black-light-hot-yoga-class/event_E0-001-088492382-1@2016051317

https://www.movewith.com/classes/sparkle-flow-electroyoga-live-with-gizella-olivo-12?s=1&b=1

http://248am.com/events/events/electro-yoga-in-the-park/

Here is an instructor that uses a PEMF mat for classes in ElectroYoga

http://hotstone.yoga

http://www.inthespirityoga.com/news/2015/6/23/pulsed-electromagnetic-fields-how-they-heal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magenta1984 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term electromagnetic therapy can refer to several things, including the FDA-approved electrotherapy, and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF) which is used for non-union bone fractures and depression, but that must not be confused with electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine), which is indeed pseudoscience.

And none of the references offered here or now in the article are considered WP:Reliable sources on Wikipedia. As for the AM radio station in Canada referred to above, their website has simply included listing an ElectroYoga event in the events section. OnionRing (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability guideline, seems like promotion of Yoga mats and therapy and also has unsourced, incorrect information like "sand/granite is highly conductive" while they are insulators. DeVerm (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also note that the definition of ElectroYoga here has changed substantially from the original article. Initially it was all about hot yoga plus electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine); now the emphasis in the lead has been changed to hot yoga at musical events, evidently to match the few online mentions found. OnionRing (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fringe bollocks (promotion for biomat?) Alexbrn (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Non-notable free-floating stray voltage article. Content jumps widely, is unstable over time, and has wildly unusual claims. The various usage examples merely conflate disparate terms, and do so thoroughly inconsistently. There are no proper underpinning citations - because there is no proper underlying conceptualization. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. For the second time, consensus has formed that this subject is not eligible for a Wikipedia article based on the sources available and the facts presented. I will salt the page per the consensus of the discussion also. KaisaL (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adhitya Iyer[edit]

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

The AfD on a previous instance of this article concluded yesterday with deletion. Apparently this new article (submitted by the same editor as the previous instance) is sufficiently different for CSD G4 not to apply. However notability concerns have not been addressed. The subject's book is self-published through Notion Press and, of the given references, the first (Indiatoday, 4 March 2016) is a piece by the subject, the second (Indianexpress) is a blank profile page, and the third (YKA) is a profile on a self-submission site, as well as being the only support found for the top-30 honour (possibly National Entrepreneurship Network, but no mention of the subject on their site). Even if better verification was found, a top-30 student award would be unlikely to be notable. I don't know whether these same references were available on the article version considered under the previous AfD, but its discussion seems to remain applicable. I am seeing nothing to suggest notability, either under WP:AUTHOR or wider biographical criteria, so I am bringing this to AfD proposing reconfirmation of yesterday's deletion decision. AllyD (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thanks, AllyD - I had been thinking of starting a new AfD bringing up the same arguments, so I agree entirely with the rationale brought forth in the nomination. I also didn't see the version of the article deleted yesterday but the same notability issues apply. I'm not even quite certain that Aditya Iyer the sports journalist in the second reference is the same person as the subject of the article (it's not an uncommon name), but even assuming that it is one and the same person, there is no indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. --bonadea contributions talk 18:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No improvement on first AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and salt per Xxanthippe. OnionRing (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per my rationale in the previous AfD. This version is different from the previous just by a whisker, and could have been G4ed in my understanding. The concerns with notability from the first AfD have not been addressed in any way and still fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Salting this would be a good idea. Ya sh ! 09:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G11 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark's Bistro[edit]

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

No Reliable Sources for this restaurant, does not appear to meet WP:CORP PGWG (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draftspace and tag as low potential per Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Tagging_drafts. Plausibly notable and we shouldn't drive content creators away. WikiCreativeJuicer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCreativeJuicer has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability, borderline G11. Draftspace is not meant as a dungheap. Huon (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being frequented by non-notable people is not a claim of notability for a restaurant. No reliable source coverage is present here at all. And Huon is correct that draftspace is not a permanent holding tank that confers a permanent exemption from the article ever having to be ready for prime time — nothing here suggests that notability (which is conditional on sourceability) is even remotely "plausible". And for added bonus, the "tagging drafts" section that WikiCreativeJuicer linked to above is just an unresolved one-week-old proposal for how to deal with draftspace content — the templates listed there don't even exist to be used in the purpose proposed for them. A process that doesn't even exist yet cannot already be an alternative to the processes we do have. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't even find evidence online that the place exists. The whole thing smells of a prank to me. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. I can't find any evidence that the place exists as a Sydney restaurant. (There seems to be a place of that name in the U.S., in Omaha, Nebraska, but without a connection here.) Looks like a case of WP:MADEUP. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:40, 29 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. No arguments for this article's inclusion have been made. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FineReport[edit]

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

External sources all simply point to download links, no coverage from Reliable Sources that I can find on this software. PGWG (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article fails our notability guideline and has no valid sources at all. DeVerm (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems there are hits in Chinese-language newspaper sources, but I cannot read Chinese and have no idea which sources are reliable. Mabybe categorization will attract someone from Wikiproject China to take a look. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of china-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Each of these Chinese sources reads like a press release. --Antigng (talk) 02:35, 30 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 03:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After School (film)[edit]

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

No sources to establish notability per WP:NFILM. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's very difficult to research older Singaporean films. I found a few hits at the National Library, Singapore, though: [2] from Today, [3] (Google cache of an archived newspaper snippet) from Today, [4] (article is "hard-hitting film", third from the top) from The Straits Times, and [5] ("focus on delinquency" on page 28) from The New Paper. I can't read some of these articles, though. I think it probably got significant coverage from Singaporean press, but it's hard to tell. There's also a little commentary in [6] from The Guardian. I'll see if I can find more sources, but I'm not sure how good of a job I can do. I edit in this area occasionally, but only because it seems like nobody else does. I'm kind of clueless about Singaporean cinema. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a legit movie, sponsored by the "National Crime Prevention Council" and it opened in cinemas as well. Initial screenings were at educational institutions though. Let me head down to the library tomorrow and I will look up the newspaper archives. Sources are available for sure, but they are behind a paywall. Here is a press release for the moment. I'll present the sources tomorrow. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In looking further:

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

WP:INDAFD: Zhu Houren

Redirect and partial merge for now to its notable director Zhu Houren. If more sources are added, please ping me so I might reconsider. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC) I was pinged. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I managed to find sources. Some of them are behind a paywall, so I can quote a snippet.

A pointed educational film Review in Today, 12 March 2004 (Article fully accessible)
Brought to you by the Police Article in Today, 15 November 2003 (Article fully accessible)
Reelity bites. The Straits Times, 14 November 2003. (Entirely about the movie)
A snippet can be seen here (search for "reelity bites"). A bit more below
Bloody street fights, revenge attacks on school bullies and rape. These are some of the graphic images through which the police and the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) will drive home an anti-crime message during their annual festive season crime prevention campaign. This year's campaign will be launched tomorrow and the highlight will be a movie titled After School. The 90-minute movie, which was made by local film company Gateway Entertainment and cost a 'six-figure sum', focuses on the activities of juvenile delinquents and their consequences. It was commissioned by the NCPC to address the problem of rising juvenile crime."
Digital dramas The Straits Times, 14 October 2003
A snippet can be seen here. Search for "digital dramas". A bit more below
Movie director Gerald Lee's psychosexual thriller Destiny will star Tan and MediaCorp actor Xie Shaoguang, and is touted as the first HD movie to be produced in the region. After School, a police drama with MediaCorp star Jacelyn Tay and ex-MediaCorp artist Thomas Ong in the lead roles, will be the first HD film to be screened in the digital cinema format. Gateway Entertainment, which produced both movies, will finalise plans to screen Destiny only after its previews at the end of this month. After School will be shown at the Singapore Polytechnic next month, but details of its commercial release are not yet available.
Add some of the sources by NinjaRobotPirate as well (except the above).

Overall, I think this manages to pass. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: you may wish to reconsider now. :) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as my concerns have been addressed. Kudos to Lemongirl942. That's how to build an encyclopedia. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be enough coverage to pass. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a blatant hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Official Album Summer Olympics Games Rio 2016[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:NALBUM: I can't find any evidence online that this "Official" album exists. Possible WP:Hoax. Proposed deletion contested without comment by anonymous editor. OnionRing (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON at best. I get precisely three Google results for "Si Te Vas" "Time Works Wonders" "Olympics", none confirming the existence of an Olympic album opening with those two tracks. --McGeddon (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant hoax. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 17:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete fails WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:TOOSOON. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:13, 27 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. KaisaL (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Nelson[edit]

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

WP:BLP, written and formatted more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article, of a person whose claims of notability are more inherited than organic: he's a media spokesman for and cofounder of various organizations, but the sourcing here is split about halfway between primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about those organizations with no evidence of reliable source coverage in which he's substantively the subject. Also probable WP:COI, as it was created by an editor who has never made a single contribution to Wikipedia outside this subject. His name can be mentioned in the articles where it's relevant to mention, but neither the substance nor the sourcing here suggests the need for a standalone BLP of him as an individual. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; per nom - reads like a CV and not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable publicist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Simple formation of consensus per the well-established guidelines on this area. If he ever does meet the criteria then recreation is perfectly acceptable without prejudice. KaisaL (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Gilbert (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hasn't won any awards or recognition at the juniors or collegiate level (yet); nothing suggests that he will in the near future. As the 91st draft pick overall last year, odds are 50/50 at best that he ever sees any ice time in the NHL. If he ever does, recreate the article; until then, non-notable player. Rockypedia (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete - The page no longer exists as it was deleted according to CSD #G7 - Author's requested deletion or blanked the page. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xinran zheng[edit]

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

Reason Maornand (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominated for speedy. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 14:28, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment page no longer exists, I'll close unless something happens in the next short while. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:12, 27 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. KaisaL (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Killeen[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable for stand alone article at this time; maybe in the future. Kierzek (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe later in his career, but not yet. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found this article and some coverage of his signing in Italy, but not enough to meet GNG and he doesn't meet NHOCKEY. Rlendog (talk) 21:08, 28 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. KaisaL (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Maguire (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I found some sources from the Boston Globe and CBS Sports however I believe this is routine coverage. It looks like he will play with the American Hockey League. If he does play the next few years, I believe this will fulfill WP:NHOCKEY, but not this early in his career. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable for stand alone article at this time; maybe in the future. Kierzek (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not yet. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:15, 27 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 G5 by SpacemanSpiff. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Country (2016 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF with no sources confirming that principle photography has commenced; article has no sources at all, and does not suggest a release date. I can't find any mentions of the film online beyond its own self-promotion. McGeddon (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF, there's a trailer for the movie (with <200 views) but that's all I could find on this movie, there's more unrelated references to Quebec than to this movie. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable for stand alone article at this time; maybe in the future, but does not show it is even in production. What is present is not even enough for a stub; agree with above. Kierzek (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination as well as WP:CRYSTAL concerns. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:00, 28 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. I am not satisfied that any valid contributions have made to this debate on the side of inclusion, and as such I am going with a consensus to delete. I note that if this company does grow and receive reliable coverage then it could be recreated in the future as it would have been WP:TOOSOON at this time. KaisaL (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Monster[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:CORP, with no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. They won a developer competition run by Intel, but though that company is notable, the prize doesn't seem particularly notable and gets little coverage. I can't find any confirmation online of them winning an award from Game Jam, and the Casual Connect Indie Prize seems to be low-notability. OnionRing (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to be a notable company. Too soon. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was a mistake with the awards, if you look on the Massive Monster Website it says 'UOP GameJam'. UOP meaning University of Portsmouth. Although that award shouldn't be on there I do not agree that this company page should be deleted due to the fact of awards, they are even listed on a gamedevmap. Content like this can help smaller games companies get more publicity and with 2 games on the brink of release there will be more content to put up soon. Please reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.66.84.246 (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia isn't meant to be a vehicle to help promote companies who ought to be better known, it's an encyclopaedia for documenting things (and companies) that are already notable. How do you know that they have two games in the brink of release: do you work for the company? OnionRing (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Its games had next to no coverage in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. The awards are non-notable and didn't bring the company much press for us to use to write an article... And there are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 17:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Obviously non-notable, nothing out there, has even started his TV career, WP:Too soon at best Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Oshan[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG, only source I can find is the subject's Youtube page. PGWG (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources that give evidence of notability. Aust331 (talk) 13:59, 27 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. I'm satisfied a reasonable consensus to delete has been formed, especially given the previous debate in 2014. KaisaL (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology[edit]

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

This has already been deleted once before, but unfortunately, the reviewing admin found this incarnation sufficiently different to deny speedy deletion (G4). However, as with the previous version, this still is not notable. Not indexed in any selective database (the rather permissible PubMed Central is not considereded to be very selective). No independent sources, unless one considers a link to the fake impact factor ("Global Impact Factor") as such. Publisher is on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – does not meet notability standards for journals (WP:NJOURNAL) and has a predatory publisher. EdChem (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing has changed since last time. Vectro (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that WP:JOURNALCRIT are not met. DeVerm (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malak Salman Shahzada[edit]

How to improve this article? Why this article is in deletion criteria? All the information have been provided from the references.

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

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:AUTHOR. No claim of notability. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are weak and come nowhere near establishing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 06:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 06:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Network Science Society[edit]

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

This was speedy deleted once before as G11 and seems little changed from that. Intent here seems to be to promote this organization and its event. The sources given seem to have little to do with either. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The post on this page by the page creator may be relevant. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have applied G11 to this. DGG ( talk ) 09:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides non notable, the talk page also demonstrates conflict of interest. DeVerm (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems close to G11 to me, as does Netsci Conference created by the same user, and these two pages support each other. Not notable and written with a COI in a promotional tone, delete it. EdChem (talk) 07:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments for this article's inclusion have been made. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYG[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unencyclopedic WP:DICDEF, unsourced acronym. CSDed in previous AfD in 2010, but I have no idea if this is at all related. If it is, I think it is speediable again. MSJapan (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Prior AfD (and CSD) is unrelated, referring to a Linux Distro. This is referring to an acronym. We stick acronyms in our massive List of acronyms article, and this specifically would go into List of acronyms: F#FY Fieari (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced WP:DICDEF. I think I've come across one or more of the lists of acronyms before, but looking at e.g. List of acronyms: F it's looking a bit wikianachronistic. Around for 11 years with no talk page and, tons of content, and almost no sources. More or less a user-generated free-for-all for plausible-sounding acronyms. Merging unsourced content is even more problematic as adding it in the first place. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uncited. Slid over to this title in 2010 when the unrelated topic was CSD. This has been uncited for a decade, no less. It's a DICDEF that may be a "neoligism that doesn't even have the merit of being newish". FeatherPluma (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments for this article's inclusion have been made. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Credo Recovery Ministries[edit]

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

All the references in the articles come from the organization itself or its parent organization. Speedy was declined on the basis that "organization implicitly asserts significance but I just see it asserting existence. DGG ( talk ) 13:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: I cannot find any coverage in reliable sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing actually convincing, my examinations found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 30 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 Michael Hardcastle. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 03:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Goal (children's novel)[edit]

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

WP:NOTPLOT. The author has a fairly sizable corpus and is notable, but an arbitrary merge of plot to his article from a primary source doesn't seem to add much value. MSJapan (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michael Hardcastle. This book does not appear to be particularly notable; in fact I could find nothing at all about it (although searching is hard because many of his books contain the word "Goal" in the title). --MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per MelanieN - There's tons of books with the word "Goal" so finding this particular book is a challenge to say the least, Anyway no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:10, 27 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. Uncontested. Sandstein 11:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shariq Afroz[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If I understand this correctly he is the state leaders of a sub-section of a political party in a particular state in India. The party as far as I can tell does not actually control a government outside of Delhi State. Afroz appears to be a minor party functionary and not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your understanding is correct. But just to clarify, AAP also has 4 members in Lok Sabha from Punjab state and those 4 are notable to stay per NPOL although the party doesn't control Punjab's state government. This is with regards to Uttarakhand state from where AAP has no representative in Lok Sabha nor in the current state's Legislative Assembly. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zomi is unhappy on the Myanmar Military and CNA[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Zomi is unhappy on the Myanmar Military and CNA

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

This was the subject of an expired PROD. However, comments on the article's talk page clearly indicate that the article's author contests the deletion, making PROD inappropriate. Notwithstanding this, in my view the page should clearly be deleted per WP:NOTESSAY. It is, of course, possible that some of the content, if properly sourced and neutrally written, could find a place in already existing articles. Steve Smith (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I endorsed the original PROD, and in retrospect, I should have understood the comments on the talk page as a contest of the PROD. Kudos to Steve Smith for doing the right thing. In any event, the article is an essay in its current state (see WP:NOTESSAY). It looks like there are sources that discuss conflicts between the Myanmar government and the Zomi people, but information about that topic should be discussed at the articles for Zo people, Zomi nationalism, or Chin State per WP:PAGEDECIDE. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original prod. I agree entirely with Steve Smith. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTSOAPBOX Ajf773 (talk) 09:11, 30 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 as WP:A7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parli(short film)[edit]

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

An upcoming Youtube release short film possibly failed WP:NF. My searches found nothing on the internet. Thank You – GSS (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm going to go ahead and delete this as G7, as it's a non-notable YouTube video. I recognize this film from Draft:Parli(short film), which I declined at AfC for not passing NFF, meaning that the editors will still have an article to work on in the meantime. I do wish them well, but Wikipedia is not a place to promote their work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:58, 27 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. Consensus appears to be to keep this article at this time, there has certainly been no argument to delete. KaisaL (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jar'Edo Wens hoax[edit]

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

No lasting effect and nothing special among many other hoaxes. Probably merge to Reliability of Wikipedia. GZWDer (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - When you've got articles in the Washington Post and the Sydney mainstream press reporting on the hoax, what we have is notability. I suppose a case could be made for an IAR deletion or a deletion per NOT NEWS, which might be fine for a less lengthy stunt, but the fact that this was one of the longest running hoaxes on WP gives some weight to the Keep side of the teeter-totter. Passes GNG, bottom line. Carrite (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other longer running hoaxes were later found and there're no articles about them. The content of this article is short and should be merged with Reliability of Wikipedia.--GZWDer (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an OTHER STUFF [DOES NOT EXIST] argument. If those other hoaxes generated major mainstream press coverage, there should be articles about them as well, I would argue. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - made international news and to be honest an illuminating cautionary tale of the problems Wikipedia can have. The fact that longer-running hoaxes have been found since does not invalidate this. Blythwood (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Article 'bout Jack Robichaux proved to be a longer lasting hoax, got the same media attention, but has no article about the hoax itself.--176.104.110.11 (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's notable; the article just needs cleaning up. The argument that "Other longer running hoaxes were later found and there're no articles about them" is meaningless and the opposite of WP:OSE ("The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist"}. Just because other articles on hoaxes don't exist doesn't mean they should not or will not exist. Sundayclose (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Adequately referenced and conceptually encyclopedic. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 03:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vaud and the Villains[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND, no sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BAND criteria #1 and WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Asian Journal
Los Angeles Times
Ventura County Times
Santa Barbara Independent
New Hampshire Public Radio (8:18 broadcast)
Seven Days (published by Seven Days, based in Vermont. 700+ words.) (subscription required)
KPBS
The Union. (published by The Union, based in Nevada)

Keep Original article was weak because it was poorly sourced. Subsequent references provided by user North America indicate the subject meets multiple criteria to merit a wikipedia entry. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wrote the original article. Sorry, I've written a lot of articles and sometimes I don't get around to expanding the occasional stub ;) (I saw them in concert and just threw together a stub) - but trust me, I wouldn't have added it without knowing it oculd be expanded :P Missvain (talk) 16:44, 28 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. KaisaL (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Comeau[edit]

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

Very few notable roles, biggest appears to be starring in a Weird Al video. Bit parts only, no sourcing found, not much notability in his musical endeavors either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has reoccurring roles in three major television series. He did as waiter Artie in Providence in 2002. He did 26 episodes as Theodore "Teddy" Huffstodt in Huff from 2004-2006. He did 5 episodes as Dr. Travis Brennan in House M.D. in 2007. That's good enough for me. He has a recognized fole in Frozen Peas that stars Jacqui Holland and Alan Ruck. IMdb Andy Comeau. BTW: Check his IMdb message board. Karl Twist (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with the above comment that he has had enough recurring roles in notable television seies (having articles) for WP:NACTOR to be passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is it with these notability Nazis. (and no I'm not literally calling anyone a Nazi). Notability is not a strict thing. There's all kinds of reasons a person can be notable as an actor. How many other articles on wikipedia should be deleted based on the arguments above? --Dr who1975 (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the above. Quote: "notability Nazis". Hmmm, I'm not going to disagree with you here. Seems actors in the paat have been deleted from Wikipedia that shouldn't have. You've made a point Dr who1975 that is a valid one. Yes! Karl Twist (talk) 08:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you clearly didn't research what you were talking about if you think he only had but parts and his most notable appearance is in a weird al video. He was a regualr supporting cast member on an HBO series. He was a recurring character on several episodes of House. I'm just going from memory here. Please research something properly before going to all the trouble of making a request for a delete. --Dr who1975 (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Satisfied that there's plenty to justify closing this as an uncontroversial keep - sources are plentiful and reliable as listed in Sergecross73's comment. KaisaL (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowcard (album)[edit]

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

Deletion or redirect to artist - doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. May at some point - WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTALBALL. Did redirect to artist so it could be easily reverted if album becomes notable, but reverted with no reason given. Deletion may therefore be best option for now and userfy. Boleyn (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It already passes WP:HAMMER, and has 2 third party reliable sources in the article already. Considering this is a platinum selling band with nine prior notable studio album, deletion strikes me as a tedious waste of time and effort. Sergecross73 msg me 18:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment HAMMER is not a guideline, and it talks about unreleased albums without titles - it isn't relevant to the notability of this album. Redirection is the alternative put forward to deletion, which then could easily be undone. Unfortunately, as this was unilaterally reverted without even a reason given, a discussion at AfD seemed the next best option. Both options (plus others) remain on the table for discussion, although I'm leaning towards userfy at the moment. Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Youre kind of missing the point here - perhaps I was not clear enough. If an album has a title, release date, and track listing, chances are - there are sources out there. And there are. It's unfortunate that person undid your edit without explanation, but it's also just about as unfortunate that you didn't seem to do much in the way of research on this either... Sergecross73 msg me 00:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's some reliable, third party sources dedicating articles to the album:

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/06/24/yellowcard-break-up-final-album
http://www.abc15.com/entertainment/events/yellowcard-is-breaking-up-theyre-giving-fans-a-new-single-album-and-final-world-tour
http://www.fuse.tv/2016/06/yellowcard-rest-in-peace-new-song-single
http://teamrock.com/news/2016-06-27/yellowcard-announce-they-ll-split-after-2016-album-and-world-tour
http://www.rocksound.tv/news/read/yellowcard-call-it-a-day-announce-final-album-world-tour Sergecross73 msg me 18:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obviously notable, like all their other albums. BlaccCrab (talk) 20:57, 28 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. KaisaL (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Tugend[edit]

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

Not notable person. The creator is a single purpose account that has created only this article, edited it for two separate days and has never edited Wikipedia again for several years. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kelvin_Road Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even beyond her 25 years as a journalist for all kinds of major publications including regularly for the New York Times, there are many many interviews about, and reviews of, her book Better by Mistake, in high-profile reliable sources. Softlavender (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has been a journalist for long enough that a lot of her work has received some mention elsewhere: see [7]. No specific item is enough by itself, but taken as a whole, I think it makes her a notable journalist. SPA or otherwise, there are no POV issues with the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Published, known, mentioned numerous times over the years in very reliable sources. Meets WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WV and Softlavender are well known as working together to follow and stalk me. That is too bad. WV has even been blocked 10 times for bad behavior. I would not value their comments at all. As for notability, this person is less notable than many university professors, who author journal articles, yet a professor is deemed not notable unless they are a chair or a faculty member known to the general public. Also an actor with similar credentials would easily be deemed not notable. This author has no famous awards, just two books. I wouldn't be surprised if the creator of the article is the author herself, who created the article, edited nothing else, and left. Whiskeymouth (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskeymouth, there is absolutely no need to bring up Winkelvi block log up here and saying "I would not value their comments at all" borders on incivility. Comment on their points, not the editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article could use some cleaning up but there does seem be coverage of her and her work in significant sources, and I've just added one more (CBS Moneywatch).Innisfree987 (talk) 22:38, 30 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The IF Diet[edit]

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

Non notable book. No reviews. Lacks of coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing to journal articles is for the general concept of intermittent fasting, not about this book. All these articles were published (2007-2012) before this book (2013). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find any coverage of this book in reliable sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tagged this for notability and the need for better references (i.e. specifically about the book) when the article was created in March 2013. The content is no better now, nor are my searches locating anything better (despite there being a new 2016 edition whose cover proclaims "The world's bestselling book by Robert Skinner" - which I guess can be read multiple ways). Fails WP:NBOOK, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched, but there's pretty much nothing out there about this book, not even in the basic blogging and forum world. Those don't count towards notability or as a RS on here, but the absence of chatter is pretty telling. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:34, 28 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 13:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omentopexy[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF. Unsourced since 2008. MSJapan (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – GNG pass. A medical term and procedure that has received significant coverage in scholarly sources. See below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Farm Animal Surgery
etc.

Keep - It may be a stub, but it's a stub of a notable subject. Could be expanded beyond it's current "dicdef" state. Thus, !vote keep. Fieari (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified by Northamerica. This article should be expanded, not deleted. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by NA. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:46, 27 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. Since the relist on June 27th a very clear consensus to keep has formed. KaisaL (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religious communism[edit]

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

This article seems to be based on WP:SYN - editorial extrapolation from a single source which is not about the subject. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is noncompliant with WP:NOR, WP:SYNC, WP:ADVOCACY and fails WP:RS. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever content is salvageable into Communism and redirect. The Communism article already has a Christian communism section whose scope can be expanded. Graham (talk) 05:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm still not entirely opposed to a merge until such time as a split is warranted, now that I have seen the newly cleaned up article, I have to lean towards a weak keep. Graham (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per our editing policy, the current state of the topic is not a reason to delete; rather it is a reason to improve the page. The Encyclopedia of Protestantism] quite clearly states that "Two forms of communism may be distinguished: religious communism and political communism..." Relevant sources include The theological basis of digger Communism; Amana: A Study of Religious Communism; The early Shakers: an experiment in religious communism; Communal utopias and the American experience: religious communities, 1732-2000, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Davidson. I expect a check of Google books will turn up quite a few reliable sources. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 19:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to Communism and redirect: It's a poor quality article but it meeds GNG as a "real" thing and not a hoax, as far as I can see. Again, the concern for AfD is not quality but notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Communalism~~ Keep without prejudice to Merge to Communalism I'm impressed by the sources that have been found, but the current state of the article, especially the absence of sourcing for the existence of the topic; means, IMO, that our readers are not likely to believe anything they see here. If someone volunteers to work on it, it would be fine to draftify or userfy while retaining the redirect in mainspace. Unscintillating (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that the article creator has commented on the talk page of the article. In response to the ping below, I did a Google book search on ["religious communism" "communalism"], and both terms seems to be in use. Unscintillating (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable topic, reliable references exist, and the article is far, far from unsalvageable. Send to cleanup if you must, but by no means delete. I also oppose merging, as it seems to me that the topic is sufficiently notable for its own article. Religious communism is widely discussed as different from other forms of communism. Fieari (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I re-wrote the article per WP:TNT, I cleaned up the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues, and I added a bunch of inline citations to reliable sources that discuss this topic. I urge the editors that have voted for deletion/merging/redirection to take another look at the new version of the article (pinging JzG, Atsme, Graham11, Montanabw, and Unscintillating). Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Notecardforfree: Thanks for the ping and especially for all of your work on the article. I have revised my comment above accordingly. Graham (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's kept, it needs to be renamed. It's a term not a topic for a stand alone article, and it's not even correct terminology. "Religious" is belief in a religion, "communism" is an ideology that has nothing to do with spirituality, or religion. Google it and the only thing that comes up are the WP articles. Thanks for the edits, Notecardforfree. I'm still of the mind that there simply isn't enough beyond philosophical pondering that makes this article worthy as a stand alone. Merge what was sourced with the section in Communism, if it isn't already there, or delete it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: If I were to write an article about the intersection between religion and communism, I probably wouldn't use the phrase "religious communism." However, "religious communism" is the term that has been used in dozens (and possibly hundreds) of books and articles to describe this topic. To be honest, when I first saw this AfD thread, I didn't think I would find sources to substantiate the notability of this topic, but I soon discovered dozens of sources that discuss the history and significance of this concept. I think there is still room for expansion, but I wouldn't be opposed to merging this elsewhere if the consensus in this discussion thinks that this material should be placed within the context of another article. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Notecardforfree: thank you for your input. The community will do what it will, but those who take the time to read the sources will see that the topic is actually communism and one of the terms used is religious communism. It requires SYNTH to put it together and that is unacceptable for a WP article. In fact it is noncompliant with our fundamental principals in article writing. Delve into it and you will see that this article is shallow and confusing because without SYNTH there is no such thing as "religious communism". There is communism which a few sources have attempted to tie-in to religion but again, it requires SYNTH to make it notable. The terminology is actually a product of that SYNTH. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic, AFD is not cleanup, etc. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, and has been re-written to address many of the concerns expressed above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable historical topic, decent sourcing, and clearly attributed statements. It could use additional sources, but this is no reason for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Notable topic (see this search for starters), and also keep per WP:HEY; the article was rewritten by Notecardforfree (example diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is actually a pretty hard call; it is mistitled, I think. To some extent this concept forks Primitive communism as a topic, but I notice that WP does not include the communism of pioneer Christianity as part of primitive communism, so I'm not altogether sold that this is a true fork. Maybe merger could be explored. The seminal Marxist text on that is Ward's two-volume The Ancient Lowly. I was a little more disturbed to see that there is an article on Religious socialism, which would seem to be a fork of Christian socialism on the face of it, but I see in clicking through that this is actually a disambiguation page. Carrite (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously WP:BEFORE hasn't been followed here. Yes, the article is in a very poor shape, but it undoubtedly meets WP:GNG. Just take a look at a Google Books search. Omni Flames (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, wrong: the current article is actually essentially a different subject, now only the title is a bit SYNTH-ey. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. KaisaL (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Creek Sitka Spruce[edit]

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

Non-notable. It's an article about one singular tree that does not assert any distinct notability. Amccann421 (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge (changed !vote, see below). Found two barely reliable sources here and here and a free image here, but no nature books or other secondary sources that could be cited in the article to show independent notability. —Prhart com♥ 12:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge probably to List of trees#Living 4. It's a named, known tree, that is what the list is for. And the list does not yet have a sitka spruce. It should be covered in the list first, and there's not yet enough about it to require it to be split out. --do ncr am 17:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best idea. The article would still be deleted. I have changed my !vote accordingly. —Prhart com♥ 13:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that the article would be gone, colloquially, right, not that it would technically be Wikipedia-deleted? A merge would naturally leave a redirect, which is appropriate IMO: to help anyone searching for it, and to enable a past version of article to be restored if the tree becomes very notable, like if a politician crashes into it. :) Maybe not everyone knows this: technically, there should be an anchor put into the target article, ~~e.g. {{anchor|HarrisCreekSitkaSpruce}}~~ and the redirect should link to [[List of trees#HarrisCreekSitkaSpruce]]. (To the closer: Hmm, actually the coverage would be a row in a table, and anchors like that don't work properly. What's needed is an "id=" label in the separator between table rows, like |- id="HarrisCreekSitkaSpruce", and the redirect would be the same. And, there is no usage at all of either type of anchor in the List of trees article.) Thanks for looking into it further and coming up with sources that can be used in a table row. --do ncr am 02:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my error in wording. doncram, you've got it exactly. I hope you can watch carefully when this is closed and ensure it gets done that way. Best, —Prhart com♥ 01:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a quick search turned up many mentions in books: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and many more online in various travel/tourism/hiking/nature related websites. Granted, this is not very "deep" coverage but it is pretty good for an individual tree. Furthermore, almost of the entries in the list of notable trees (List of trees) have blue or red links, so it's hard to argue this tree should be included in there and NOT have an article. MB (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MB's arguments and sources. Add to the list of trees with a blue link while we're at it. Then cleanup can happen for the article. Fieari (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MB. There appears to be more information than can reasonably be covered in a list entry. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A quick search on google turned up quite a few hits and several mentions in books, there's enough there to warrant a separate article and a mention on the list page. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What new information supposedly requires being split out? From the book links found by MB, the only piece of info besides location that I see is that the tree is 4 metres (13 ft) in diameter. It's nice that the tree is mentioned in each guidebook, but it is only mentioned as "see the Harris Creek Sitka Spruce here", with no additional info at all. In one of the links I was not able to see the next page, denied to me perhaps randomly, so I am open to being informed of other specific facts that can be used as material. However, the table row has no space limit and several facts could be accommodated there. Please draft out a passage that is perhaps too long if you can. But here is my version of a table row from what's in the article + fact it is 4 meters thick, after two other examples:

Name	Species	Location	Age	Notes
Iluvatar	Coast Redwood	Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park, near Orick, California, US		An arborist resting next to the coast redwood Iluvatar in the spring of 2008. The third largest known coast redwood. It is located in Atlas Grove (a grove of redwood trees) in Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park.
Duffie Oak		Mobile, Alabama, US	300	It is estimated to be at least 300 years old and has a circumference of 30 feet 11 inches (9.42 m), a height of 48 feet (15 m) and a spread of 126 feet (38 m). Scholars consider it to be the oldest living landmark in the city.^[1]^[2]
Harris Creek Sitka Spruce	Sitka spruce	Near the creek bed of Harris Creek, which runs alongside the Pacific Marine Road between Port Renfrew, BC and Honeymoon Bay, BC on Vancouver Island		At 4 metres (13 ft) in diameter,^[3] it is not the largest sitka spruce on Vancouver Island, but is easily accessible due to the paving of a former logging road,^[4] and has become well-known: hikers going by on Harris Creek Main trail and other trails are recommended by trail guide books to make a short detour to visit it. Logging in this area was permanently restricted by a 2012 vote.^[3]

References

^ "Alabama's Famous & Historic Tree Program" (PDF). Alabama Forestry Commission. State of Alabama. Retrieved November 13, 2012.
^ "Live Oak Project, Mobile, AL". Native Tree Society. Eastern Native Tree Society. Retrieved November 13, 2012.
^ ^a ^b Phil Lee; Sarah Hull; Stephen Keeling; AnneLise Sorensen; Steven Horak (2013). The Rough Guide to Canada. Penguin.
^ Liz Bryan (2011). Country Roads of Western BC: From the Fraser Valley to the Islands. Heritage House Publishing Co. p. 136.

One can quibble with what should be said in the row (and maybe this is too much or is not adequately supported by sources) but even this much (all we know about it) does not require a separate article. I welcome edits to this draft. Offhand, I would like to see coordinates added for this tree and others in the list (to be added into the location column). And it could be mentioned if there is a parking area at some mile number on some road where you could pull over and walk X meters to see it, if you can. But there exists no age estimate and it apparently has not even been measured in spread, circumference, height. --do ncr am 01:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment 1. If it subject is notable, then it can have an article, even if it is just a stub. Why force it into a list? Doesn't an article make it more likely editors will expand the coverage.

2. I spent about one minute and found this site [13] which adds:

tree is not officially protected
it grows in a semi-wilderness area
the surrounding forest was harvested in 1893 yet the tree survived
a sign asks visitors to not walk on the root system
it is 82 meters tall
it has a fat flared trunk
it is draped in hanging moss
a fence has been built around it
there is a wheelchair accessible trail
its age has not been dated but must be hundreds of years old

Assuming this site is acceptable, there is much more to say. (I would think we don't have to be quite as stringent as with BLPs.) Maybe with some more digging the info Doncram mentioned can be dug up also. This [14] is a google map with the tree pinpointed, but I don't know how to derive the coordinates. MB (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would be nice if you admitted the previous sources were so thin as to be nearly useless, but Greg Koep (and Linda H.?)'s Vancouver Island Big Trees blogspot's blog on the tree is indeed a pretty good source to come out with now, for info on a big tree on Vancouver Island. I would accept them as an expert.

Usually you can just right-click on any point in a Google map and select "What's here?" to see its coordinates, but not in that one. By opening another Google map side-by-side and zooming in, I could find pretty much the exact same spot. It's at 48°40′45″N 124°12′51″W / 48.67921°N 124.21418°W. --do ncr am 05:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the previous sources were useless at all. I was trying to establish notability. Since we don't have a formal notability guideline for trees as we do for say, athletes, I was trying to suggest that any tree that has a widely known name or is written about individually in just about any way, or is a tourist attraction, would be notable. Since there are over three trillion trees ([[15]); this is a very selective subset. There are about 100 living trees on the list, out of 3,000,000,000,000, a very small percentage. MB (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the trees on the list which have separate list-articles (with an exception or two where AFD might be approprate) are generally far more extraordinary that this one, which is not even the biggest Sitka spruce on its island. I don't agree the standard for tree notability is "any tree...written about individually in just about any way". That is not how Wikipedia works!!!

I'm inclined still to say the tree should just be mentioned in the list, i.e. the decision here should still be Merge. What we have is one nice blog website which can be linked. Maybe just a link to that is all that is appropriate, even though I kind of like the blogsite and the blogger. We don't need to copy the blog to a list-article or to a separate article, and I am not sure how an article would look to be sourced just to a blog, and I am not sure about quality of material like ""a fence has been built around it". Does that need to be said, given that the article and the list-article row both have the same photo that shows that already? It may be a stretch to include this tree on the list at all, and it is not necessary to have an article for it. IMHO. --do ncr am 05:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Keep in light of the foregoing. WP:Snow 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about any Speedy Keep, beyond the fact that this has been open several days and Speedy does not apply. Per my reply to "Comment" just above. And the only material written out so far is what I drafted to fit in a row in the list-article. If someone wants to show a legitimate article can be created, well go ahead and show it. Or it is best to redirect the article to the row, and leave it to some future editors to actually develop it, if they can. Like if there is substantially more to say than "its age has not been dated but must be hundreds of years old". --do ncr am 05:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As is evident, there was no compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MB has provided more than enough sources to show that this clearly passes GNG. There's no need to merge this into the list, as a few mentions in books is enough to show this tree's notability on it's own. Omni Flames (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 09:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pritam Singh (Actor)[edit]

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

Biography for a person who does not meet the notability guidelines. The notability guidelines for actors/entertainers requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." It says that they had a role in a film, but I cannot find the subject in the cast list, meaning that it was not a major role. They've also made appearances in two reality shows, but again I don't think we could call those major entertainer roles unless they were the host themselves or their performance received attention that led to other notable things.

At the end, what I think is the Dada Saheb Phalke Film Foundation is mentioned. If this were the Dadasaheb Phalke Award (India's highest award in cinema), then he would indeed be notable. However, the award he won has 61 categories, so I'm not sure how major it is, though he seems to have won "Best Television Entertainers Of The Year".

Lastly, a web search does not seem to satisfy the significant coverage in reliable sources required to meet the general notability guidelines, so we would not be able to write in depth about him without resorting to original research, which is essential for a biography of a living person. Unless it can be shown that these roles were significant, the award major (on its own though, it's a weak justification), or that there is significant coverage of him in reliable sources, then I don't think he meets our notability guidelines. Opencooper (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Article was created by editor Arunsingh2728, who apparently has conflict of interest (..I am making his wikipedia page on his behalf), and at few instances (diff, diff2) has referred himself as we. The article was undoubtedly full of unsourced, original research and promo materials when it was moved from sandbox to mainspace (diff). However, I cleaned-up the article before this afd nomination.

The basic question that remains here is that subject does meet notability standard or not. He simply doesn't meet WP:NACTOR - as he did only one film and that too without credit. He may meet wp:gng though. Sources: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]^{(Hindi language)}, [32]^{{not sure about reliability of this one.)} There should be a couple of more news on him. At first these sources look convincing enough to declare subject notable per wp:gng. But wait there's a pitfall. Almost all of the sources found on web and listed here are related to his appearance in Tv reality show Bigg Boss 8.

So, it is either a case of WP:BIO1E or he meets the required standard. I'm undecided as of now and may or may not !vote later. Anup [Talk] 19:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as both the current article and comments above show it's still overall questionable, with there being nothing at all convincing of the needed notability improvements, and I would've frankly PRODed but I imagine we will have it restarted thus delete for now, use G4 later if needed and then revisit if needed. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 19 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, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party outlets. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:45, 27 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 Great Lakes Summer Collegiate League. It is found that such teams do not have automatic notability, and that this article holds no claim to notability beyond that. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Jazz[edit]

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

I'm not sure what our practice is for these teams, which are neither college teams in the strict sense, nor professional. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's only a newly started summer team, not anything at all to suggest otherwise convincing notability, simply nothing else from there. I would also not suggest Drafting since there's no foreseeable hope here. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Collegiate summer league teams are generally notable. Some of them don't have articles, but they could if people would write them well, which this is. And regardless of whether it's college, professional, or somewhere in between, Division I college baseball teams are notable, as are professional baseball teams, so whatever you want to call it, it passes. Smartyllama (talk) 18:41, 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 02:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs WP:BEFORE attention, especially for the 100% of BLP violations. Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I honestly wouldn't consider amateur summer leagues to have automatic notability. If they're notable they need to prove so, which this one isn't doing. Wizardman 11:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you believe the topic is not notable, a WP:DEL8 notability delete argument requires that you also explain why the topic should not remain as redirected. Unscintillating (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not aware of any notability criterion that makes collegiate summer league teams inherently notable. No objection to redirecting if there is a suitable, notable target. Rlendog (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Great Lakes Summer Collegiate League, which lists the team as one of the participants in the league. I did an extensive search, but I could not find significant, in-depth coverage in secondary sources (per WP:GNG). The only secondary source that talked about the team in any depth was this article by a local USA Today affiliate. I would be happy to change my vote if other editors can demonstrate significant coverage in secondary sources, but until then, I think redirecting readers is the way to go. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Great Lakes Summer Collegiate League as a valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 28 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.

[alforestry-1] "Alabama's Famous & Historic Tree Program" (PDF). Alabama Forestry Commission. State of Alabama. Retrieved November 13, 2012.

[liveoak-2] "Live Oak Project, Mobile, AL". Native Tree Society. Eastern Native Tree Society. Retrieved November 13, 2012.

[rough-3] Phil Lee; Sarah Hull; Stephen Keeling; AnneLise Sorensen; Steven Horak (2013). The Rough Guide to Canada. Penguin.

[pave-4] Liz Bryan (2011). Country Roads of Western BC: From the Fraser Valley to the Islands. Heritage House Publishing Co. p. 136.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]